2022-08-10 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board
Remote Zoom Meeting
Agenda
121 5th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.edmondswa.gov
Michelle Martin
425-771-0220
Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting
1.
2.
A.
Remote Meeting Information
Join Zoom Meeting: https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/j/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062. Passcode: 598700
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
Phyiscal Location
The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and the public may as well at
the zoom information above. However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open
public meetings, a physical location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting
the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located at 220
Railroad Avenue.
Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their
successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken
care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their
sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
Call to Order
Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived
Approval of Minutes
Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6684)
Approval of Minutes
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve minutes from July 27th meeting.
Planning Board Page 1 Printed 81512022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda August 10, 2022
ATTACHMENTS:
• PB220727d (PDF)
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments
5. Joint Meeting with Economic Development Commission
1. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6700)
BD Designated Street Front - Joint Meeting with the Economic Development Commission
Background/History
This topic was introduced to the Planning Board on June 8, 2022 and to the Economic
Development Commission on July 20, 2022. Interim Ordinance 4262, including the revised
Designated Street Front map and clarified BD use table, expires on December 1, 2022 unless
permanent standards are adopted by that date. Alternatively, a work plan could be created to
allow the interim standards to remain in place for additional time while further BD code
revisions are considered.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss the interim BD Designated Street Front map in Ordinance 4262 and the information
provided by the economic consultants in Attachments 6 - 10. Provide direction to staff for
preparing language for inclusion in a permanent ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment 1- Interim BD Designated Street Front Map Ord. 4262 (PDF)
• Attachment 2 - BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and Legislative Intent (PDF)
• Attachment 3 - 2022-04-19 City Council Minutes Excerpt (PDF)
• Attachment 4 - 2022-04-21 City Council Public Minutes (PDF)
• Attachment 5 - 2202-05-24 City Council Minutes Excerpt (PDF)
• Attachment 6 - Submarket Demand Analysis Final (PDF)
• Attachment 7 - OTAK Edmonds BD2 Zoning Recommendations (PDF)
• Attachment 8 - Color Renderings of Development Examples (PDF)
• Attachment 9 - Additional Research on Comparable Cities (PDF)
• Attachment 10 - BD2 Zoning Memo (PDF)
• Attachment 11- 6.8.22 PB excerpt minutes (PDF)
6. Administrative Reports
7. Public Hearings
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6687)
Public Hearing on Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone (AMD2022-
0001)
Background/History
This topic was introduced to the Planning Board on July 27.
Planning Board Page 2 Printed 81512022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda August 10, 2022
On June 29, the Architectural Design Board reviewed the interim design standards for
multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone that were adopted by City Council on April 21, 2022 and
suggested revisions for permanent standards. (The interim standards must be replaced with
permanent standards by Council before October 21, 2022 when the interim standards will
expire.) Following further discussion on August 3, the ADB approved the draft permanent
standards in Exhibit 12 and moved them to the Planning Board for a public hearing.
Staff Recommendation
Take public comment on proposed draft permanent BD2 design standards in Exhibit 12 and
make any additional revisions. Make a recommendation on the draft standards and forward
the project to the City Council for their consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Exhibit 1- 2022-03-29 Council Minutes(PDF)
• Exhibit 2 - Graphics for Interim Design Standards (PDF)
• Exhibit 3 - 2022-04-05 Council Minutes(PDF)
• Exhibit 4 - 2022-04-19 Council Minutes(PDF)
• Exhibit 5 - 2022-04-21 Council Minutes(PDF)
• Exhibit 6 - Ordinance 4256 and Interim BD2 Design Standards (PDF)
• Exhibit 7 - 13D2 MF Design Standard Presentation to PB 7.27.22 (PDF)
• Exhibit 8 - June 29 draft ADB meeting minutes (PDF)
• Exhibit 9 - July 27 draft PB minutes (PDF)
• Exhibit 10 - Public Notice Documentation (PDF)
• Exhibit 11- Herrick comment (PDF)
• Exhibit 12 - ADB draft permanent BD2 design standards ECDC 22.43.080(PDF)
8. Unfinished Business
9. New Business
10. Planning Board Extended Agenda
A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 6695)
Extended Agenda
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
ATTACHMENTS:
• 08.04.2022 Extended Agenda (PDF)
Planning Board Page 3 Printed 81512022
Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda
11. Planning Board Chair Comments
12. Planning Board Member Comments
13. Adjournment
August 10, 2022
Planning Board Page 4 Printed 81512022
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/10/2022
Approval of Minutes
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve minutes from July 27th meeting.
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes attached.
Attachments:
PB220727d
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
July 27, 2022
Chair Crank called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Lily Distelhorst.
Board Members Present
Alicia Crank, Chair
Roger Pence, Vice Chair
Matt Cheung
Judi Gladstone
Richard Kuehn
Mike Rosen
Beth Tragus-Campbell (alternate)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep)
Board Members Absent
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Staff Present
Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Division Manager
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts, and Human Svcs. Director
o
Leif Bjorback, Chief Building Official
Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
o
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner a
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER ROSEN,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 13 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Larry Williamson asked about engagement activities related to the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Mr.
Lien explained he would give an update at the end of the meeting.
Marjorie Fields made comments regarding the Salmon -Safe Certification process. She strongly urged the City
to move ahead with problems mentioned in the report such as removing blockages to salmon in the streams and
stabilizing stream breaks, especially in Perrinville Creek and Shell Creek.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Pagel of 9
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Greg Ferguson commented on the Salmon -Safe Certification process. He urged the Planning Board not to
recommend that the certification be allowed. He expressed concern about the certification and the need for
improvements to the certification. The climate change issue needs to be taken seriously, and it is not adequately
addressed in the report. He stated that there are blockages on all the salmon -bearing streams. These are
acknowledged in the report, but there is no requirement to fix the blockages. Similarly, there are habitat issues
identified in the report, but there is no requirement for the City to fix them. He urged the Planning Board to
reject the report and send it back to the Science Team to add actions that will help the situation.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Activity Report
Development Services Director McLaughlin and Chief Building Official Bjorback made a presentation
regarding 2022 Development Activities focusing on COVID response, permit activity, key development, and
Comprehensive Plan performance measures.
COVID Response forced the department to move to electronic permitting activities. MyBuildingPermit.com is a
the online portal for managing permit applications. Pre -application meetings continue over Zoom. Customer
feedback on electronic processes has been positive. City Hall reopened to the public in March with reduced
hours. The majority of staff are utilizing a hybrid work model. Customer assistance is provided in -person, 0
virtual, or over the phone and/or email. 'o
L
Q
Chair Crank asked about staffing levels. Director McLaughlin reported that they just hired their second new 0.
a
planner after some reshuffling. Now, they are nearly fully staffed with the exception of one associate planner. a
Director McLaughlin reported on the numbers and types of permits issued and the corresponding revenue. There
is an upward trend of the annual number of building permits. She reviewed impact fees and general facility
charges, solar permits, and building inspections.
Mr. Bjorback reviewed a map of the key projects in Edmonds. Most are located near the Highway 99 corridor,
along Edmonds Way, or in the bowl. Projects highlighted included:
• Wastewater Treatment Plant — Carbon Recovery, 200 - 2nd Avenue S. - issued
• GRE Apartments —192 new residential Units, 23400 Highway 99 — nearing completion
• Anthology of Edmonds —127 new senior living units, 21200 — 72nd Avenue W. - issued
• Bell Street Apartments — 4 new residential units, 650 Bell Street — nearing completion
• Main Street Commons — retail, restaurant, and event space, 550/558 Main Street - issued
• Edmonds Crossing —10 new residential units, 23830 Edmonds Way — in the framing stages
• Kisan Townhomes —18 new residential units, 22810 Edmonds Way - issued
• Ford Hunter Townhomes — 4-unit townhomes, 7528 — 215d' Street SW — open for occupancy
• Paradise Heights —12 new residential units, 550 Paradise Lane - issued
• Edmonds Townhomes — 4-unit townhome, 8029 — 238th Street SW — wrapping up permit review
• Civic Field — park updates, 300 — 6d' Avenue N — estimated to open mid -winter
• Apollo Apartments — 252 new residential units, 23601 Highway 99 — nearing issuance
• Port Office Building — 6650 sf new commercial, 471 Admiral Way - applied
• Westgate Station — 4700 sf commercial + 20 residential units, 9601 Edmonds Way - applied
• Pine Park — 6 live/work + 8-unit townhome, 614/616 — 5d' Avenue S. - applied
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 2 of 9
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
• Sunde Townhomes — 5-unit townhome, 8629-238th Street SW — in design review
• Greenhill Townhomes — 6-unit townhome, 7103 — 210th Street SW — in design review
• GBH Holdings — 24-unit townhome, 627 Dayton — in design review
• Housing Hope — 52 new residential units + services, 8215- 236th Street SW — in design reviews
• Glacier Environmental Services — new commercial office + warehouse, 7509 — 212th Street SW, in
design review
• Terrace Place — 260 new residential units, 23625 — 84th Avenue W — pre -application
• Brass Tack Investments — 7 new residential units, 9516 Edmonds Way — rezone
• Edmonds Way PRD — 16-lot Planned Residential Development, 5401550 Edmonds Way — pre -
application
Director McLaughlin reported on the City's Comprehensive Plan Performance Measures as articulated in the
Comprehensive Plan. These measurements reflect city-wide and city government energy use; the number of
residential units permitted; the average number of jobs within the city; the lineal feet of water, sewer, and
stormwater mains replaced or rehabilitated; the Capital Facilities Plan project delivery results; and lineal feet of
sidewalk renovated or rehabilitated.
Comments/Questions:
Board Member Rosen asked if new sidewalks were included in the "renovated or rehabilitated" numbers.
Director McLaughlin affirmed that the new sidewalks were included in the calculations even though they
weren't necessarily spelled out. Board Member Rosen suggested highlighting that since it is such a high priority
for residents. He then referred to the increase in residential electricity consumption. He pointed out that they
have been strongly encouraging load increase behavior such as electric vehicles and switching from gas to
electric. Director McLaughlin agreed. Board Member Rosen asked for more information about the goals for the
average number of residential units permitted. Ms. McLaughlin thought that if they met that target, they were
on track for meeting the number of units needed. Mr. Lien added that the targets are from the 2015
Comprehensive Plan Update and the previous growth targets that the City was assigned. There will be new
targets with the new update. The City is on track to meet the 2035 targets, but, per the Buildable Lands Report,
beyond 2035 they are short.
Board Member Campbell thanked staff for the information. She commended staff she has worked with on the
permitting and inspection process.
Board Member Gladstone asked about the height of Terrace Place. It seems tall and out of place for the area.
Director McLaughlin noted that the area was recently rezoned. There is currently a 75-foot maximum, and the
proposal is going up to the maximum height. Mr. Lien added that this property is in the General Commercial
(CG) zone along the Highway 99 corridor. Board Member Gladstone expressed concern about the huge number
of units this will have and the resulting increase in pedestrian and car traffic. Mr. Lien explained there are
extensive frontage improvements required in the CG zone including new sidewalks. The Housing Hope project
is on the same block so the whole area will get frontage improvements. This area is also being considered for
the Green Streets project. Board Member Gladstone expressed concern about the impact on the neighborhood
and encouraged robust community engagement. She also spoked to the importance of considering where and
how the sidewalks are installed so they are useful. Director McLaughlin agreed and discussed how the
development of street typologies fits into that. This will ensure that each development has consistent application
of sidewalk standards. This will also involve a sidewalk code update. Board Member Gladstone referred to the
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 3 of 9
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
utility replacement metrics and suggested that a more meaningful metric might be the number of miles being
replaced each year and the term of replacement for the whole system.
Vice Chair Pence noted that they have seen some of these projects in previous years. He asked for clarification
about how the annual counts are done. Director McLaughlin noted that for the purposes of Comprehensive Plan
measurements, they are only counted one time, but staff is including them each year in the presentations because
they are in different phases of development. Vice Chair Pence referred to the live/work units and asked if this
is a requirement. Director McLaughlin replied that the live/work component is not required, but ground floor
commercial is. Vice Chair Pence asked if the City would require residents to have a business license. Director
McLaughlin indicated they would.
Board Member Cheung said he appreciated the maps used in the presentation as a visual representation of where
the projects are. He referred to the increase in residential energy consumption and asked if there was monthly
data for 2021. He wondered how that compares to 2022. Director McLaughlin indicated she could look into
that.
Board Member Kuehn thanked staff for the presentation and for the maps. Regarding sidewalks, he encouraged
attention to the areas where they are needed the most. He stressed that they need to be usable. Director
McLaughlin commented that as part of the Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets project, they will be doing
a pedestrian prioritization investment network which will inform where they need to invest. They will also be
looking at including in -lieu programs. Regarding the energy usage, Board Member Kuehn said he was also
interested in seeing the monthly data. He thought that perhaps people really ramped up their work -at-home
efforts in 2021 rather than 2020.
Student Representative Distelhorst said she was excited to see more multifamily housing in Edmonds but asked
if areas like Highway 99 will be prioritized to be safer for pedestrians. She spoke to the importance of improving
the area completely to provide equitable development. Director McLaughlin agreed. She noted that it makes
sense to put this density along Highway 99 where they have the high quality Bus Rapid Transit. Along with that
will be the prioritization of pedestrian safety where the development is going and where the people will be. She
spoke to the importance of involving the community in this and of focusing on quality of life for those areas.
She commented on how the Green Streets project could fit in with this goal and beautify the area.
Board Member Campbell spoke to the need for sidewalks on 84th and on 236th Streets and noted that the
sidewalk on 238t' will be even more utilized with the opening of the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. She
commented on Community Transit's proposed bus route from Edmonds Ferry directly to the Mountlake Terrace
Transit Center going up 238th. She recommended that one of the conditions of the Terrace Place project be a
stoplight at 238th Street and Highway 104 to help with the traffic situation there. Director McLaughlin indicated
that a traffic analysis would be done.
B. Equitable Engagement Framework
Director McLaughlin explained the goal is to create a framework for engaging and building meaningful
relationships with communities who have historically been underrepresented in planning for public
infrastructure and other city projects. She reviewed the tasks involved in creating the draft framework including
a team kickoff meeting, demographic data review, interviews, developing a criteria map, community champions
list, and compiling the draft framework. The demographic review aims to provide a demographic profile of
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 4 of 9
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
communities in the city based on factors such as age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, internet access, and language
spoken at home. Ten different census tracts were reviewed. She discussed detailed results of the demographic
review and discussed deliverables: demographic analysis, criteria mapping, scales of engagement, and the
Equitable Engagement Framework.
Board Member Gladstone asked if the numbers in area 9 included the people of Esperance and if they would
be included in communications. Director McLaughlin was not sure if they were included in the numbers but
indicated she could find out. She explained that if they are talking about a physical project, it would be relevant
to include the residents of Esperance in communications. Board Member Gladstone asked why the population
of black people was not specifically listed. Chair Crank commented that it is only 1-2% of the population and
was included in persons of color. She noted that persons of color numbers may actually be higher because many
people are mixed race but must choose one "box" on the census form. She spoke to the importance of
considering the different races and cultures and the perspectives and values within those communities. Director
McLaughlin concurred.
Vice Chair Pence agreed with the challenge of having to check one box for race. He requested a full copy of the
ch
report when it is done. Finally, he wondered how this will work in practice; for example, with the Unocal a
property. Director McLaughlin explained how the tools could be used to make decisions. Vice Chair Pence said c
he hopes that the underrepresented residents and overrepresented residents will be brought together. Director M
4-
McLaughlin noted that this may take extra time as the goal is to nurture relationships, educate, build confidence, 0
increase comfort levels, and level the playing field for underrepresented community members. 'o
L
Q
Board Member Cheung expressed appreciation for this work. He is looking forward to seeing the rest of the 0.
a
report. a
Board Member Rosen said he loves this data. He spoke to the importance of different approaches for different
needs. He asked about the stunning number of 27% Hispanic/Latino and asked why the census says it is only
7.9%. Director McLaughlin said she would look into it.
Board Member Kuehn also said he really likes this focus. He looks forward to hearing more about this.
Chair Crank commented on the difficulty of mixing the overrepresented groups with the underrepresented
groups initially. She noted that this project will create the opportunity to have uncomfortable but important
conversations. She stated that the outreach will need to be community -minded to be successful. She commented
on the importance of being mindful of how they approach underrepresented people. She is proud of Edmonds
for taking on this challenging work.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Salmon -Safe Certification
Director Feser introduced this item and Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla. She explained that the City
ended up the Salmon -Safe evaluation with 12 condition items that need to be met within five years and three
pre -certification items. The Planning Board had requested additional information on May 25 regarding
prioritization and criteria of the 12 conditions, resources needed in terms of costs and staff commitments, time
estimations, private landowner requirements, and pre -conditions 1 and 2 confirmation by the City. Additionally,
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 5 of 9
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
staff has come up with a couple requests they would like the Council to consider when they are reviewing
certification and contemplating adoption.
Director Feser reviewed the prioritization of the conditions and the four criteria used to prioritize them (benefit
to aquatic habitat/species; direct vs. indirect; action vs. plan; and area). The five conditions that ended up at the
top are also the ones that staff is bringing forward with some considerations for the Council to extend time or
allocate budget dollars for to make them happen. The most impactful items and the ones that require the most
resources are identified as priorities by both staff and Salmon -Safe. Director Feser also reviewed resource
estimation for the various conditions in terms of cost estimate and city staff time required to sustain the project.
Regarding private landowner requirements, the assessment done by Salmon -Safe was only for city -owned sites
so that isn't an issue. Regarding the pre -conditions, she received confirmation that Pre -Condition 1 might have
one follow-up piece. Pre -Condition 2 is good to go. Pre -Condition 3 applies to Parks and will take approximately
three months. She thinks all three will be completed before this is adopted by Council. She reviewed staff
requests/revisions related to the five top conditions.
Board Member Cheung suggested that one additional metric that might be helpful is the length of time it will
take for each of those categories. Director Feser concurred. She stated that the conditions have timeframes
associated with each one of them. By agreeing to the certification, the City agrees to the timeframe. Board
Member Cheung explained that more detail about how long the City expects each one to take would be helpful.
Board Member Gladstone thanked staff for the presentation. She asked Director Feser about the driver and the
value of the certification. Director Feser reviewed some of the history of the Salmon -Safe certification. She
acknowledged that members of the public would like to see a little more action, but staff realizes that to do this
type of work they need to develop permits, plans, and put a lot of things in place. Mr. De Lilla concurred and
spoke to the importance of having an accurate assessment of all the issues at hand before taking action.
Board Member Rosen thanked staff for responding to the Board's questions. He asked if staff s salaries are
included in the cost allocation. Director Feser replied that they are not, and neither are the consultant costs.
Board Member Rosen asked if things like climate change and emerging science are being taken into
consideration. Director Feser discussed the Parks response to the water situation. The Conservation Plan will
respond to climate -related issues and describe how the City will adapt. Mr. De Lilla agreed that they are doing
their best to keep up with the data as it is updated. He discussed how they updated the Stormwater Code to
decrease the flashiness of Perrinville Creek. This is more than what is required by the State for drainage
standards and factors in impervious surfaces that actually exist.
Board Member Rosen asked about the projected impact on salmon runs related to each condition. Director Feser
replied that Salmon -Safe said it was hard to quantify, but they have seen results in other cities where these plans
have been implemented. Board Member Rosen noted that since they have a baseline, they could implement
some milestones to see if they are making a difference. This could build in some opportunities to course correct
if things are not working or double down if they are. He referred to Condition 4 which relates to water
conservation plans and irrigation and asked how this rose so high to the top in terms of its impact on salmon.
Director Feser said she would follow up with Salmon -Safe on this.
Board Member Campbell asked if there are other projects that have been tabled that are potentially more
actionable than these items. If they don't support the Salmon -Safe framework, are there other alternatives they
are looking at? Mr. De Lilla explained that the Department of Ecology is requiring that all the Phase 2 cities put
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 6 of 9
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
together a Stormwater Management Action Plan. In some ways the Salmon -Safe certification will supplement
other things; in other ways, it will not. He reviewed other work the City is also doing. Board Member Campbell
asked about the impact that focusing on this is having on staff time and other projects. Director Feser replied
that some of these items would not have been on the work plan. By committing to the certification, they have
to put off other things. Board Member Campbell asked what those things are. Director Feser indicated she would
need to follow up on that. This is part of why they want to go to Council to make sure Council understands the
price tag and the time commitment required. Ultimately, this will be the Council's decision. Mr. De Lilla
concurred. The preference would be to get additional staffing and funds so they can continue to deal with all the
other issues.
Board Member Gladstone commented that the tradeoff issue is an important one that the Council should
consider seriously given the demands on the budget. She thinks it would also be important for Council to
consider what those milestones will be.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
CHEUNG, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ADVANCE THIS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION,
UNDERSCORING THE IMPORTANCE OF LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL TRADEOFFS OF a
IMPLEMENTING THIS VERSUS THE IMPACTS ON THE REST OF THE BUDGET AND c
ENSURING THAT THERE ARE GOOD MILESTONES OR BENCHMARKS FOR MAKING SURE
THAT THERE IS VALUE IN THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE. MOTION PASSED 0
UNANIMOUSLY. >
0
L
Q
NEW BUSINESS a
A. Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone
Senior Planner Clugston reviewed a PowerPoint presentation regarding Permanent Design Standards for
multifamily -only buildings in the BD2 zone. Council adopted interim design standards a couple months ago.
Staff is in the process of developing permanent design standards for these same buildings. He reviewed the
timeline for the adoption process and the moratorium process. These standards are intended to apply to the areas
in the BD2 zone that do not have the Designated Street Front requirements. Council also adopted an interim
map during the design standard discussion which changed the Street Front map. As a result, only a handful of
non -Designated Street Front parcels remain in the BD2 zone at the edges of the downtown area. The interim
design standards targeted these particular sites and addressed materials, private amenity space, street -side
amenity space, and roof modulation/stepdown regulations.
Materials:
• Breaks up massing; strengthens identity
• Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass
• Man-made is acceptable if made to look like preferred materials
Private Amenity Space:
• Intended to improve livability for smaller residential units
• Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation,
and style
• Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the fagade, and increases `eyes on the street'
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 7 of 9
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
• Standards:
0 10% of project area
o can be made by balconies, decks, patios, yards
o can be grouped together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use
o if with individual units must be greater than 40 square feet
o balconies can project 5' into setback from R-zone property
o decks and patios can project up to 10' in the setback area
Street -side Amenit Space:
• Results in a setback from the sidewalk to serve as amenity space
• Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience
• Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity
• Standards:
o Must be 5% of lot area
o Must be between the building front and sidewalk only and open to sky
o Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc.
o Street -side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the
front of the building
o Canopy/awnings are required and do not impact the amount of street -side amenity area. o
Roof Modulation/Stepdown: The language added to the interim standards stated that "some roof modulation is 'o
required with preference for stepdowns that follow the slope when slope exists." The intent was to provide a a
variation in roof plane and reduced the bulk of the building. The Architectural Design Board asked staff to pick a
up more on the roof modulation aspect and provide a menu of options that a developer could use to meet the
additional roof modulation requirements. Staff will be working on this for next week. ti
Private Amenity Space — Rooftop Deck: There was some concern that if the required private amenity space was
allowed on the rooftop, it might all go there. The Architectural Design Board wanted the rooftop option to be
available after the 10% of private amenity space is achieved for individual units. They also would allow that to
be above the height limit with certain conditions.
Mr. Clugston stated that staff would be going back to the ADB next week to further refine the language for
permanent standards and then be back before the Planning Board in two weeks for a public hearing on those
standards.
Comments/Questions: None
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Lien reviewed the extended agenda and solicited feedback on the length of the agenda/meeting tonight.
Chair Crank stated she did not like late meetings. She thinks the length of agenda tonight was good, but the
members need to self -monitor the amount of questions and comments. She reminded board members that staff
welcomes questions between meetings also.
Board Member Gladstone thought there was too much on the agenda tonight. It's not necessarily the number of
items on the list, but how long each one takes. She appreciates Chair Crank's comments about being judicious
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 8 of 9
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
about commentary, she thinks they need to make sure that they have the time to really understand the issues
well enough to make informed recommendations. Chair Crank agreed and recommended, when possible, asking
staff questions ahead of time.
Vice Chair Pence reminded folks that he had suggested not taking a break in mid -August which might have
helped. Chair Crank did not think that would have made that much of a difference.
I W 1I\0101 Im" *IxI n mol., /I I .ZKI7u lu I DI►YR
None.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Lien gave an update on public engagement activities related to the Comprehensive Plan update process. He
commented on the very positive response staff had from the public about having a table set up at the market and
noted they will likely continue this to some degree.
Board Member Gladstone thanked Mr. Lien for giving her a mini tour of the BD2 zone. This was very helpful
for her to better understand the situation.
Board Member Campbell thanked staff for all the work put in for tonight's meeting. Although it was a long
meeting, it was full of important information.
Vice Chair Pence commented that he will try to make a practice of asking questions ahead of meetings when
possible. He asked that the Board be kept apprised of the status of the code rewrite which Mr. Clugston will be
working on. Mr. Lien replied that would be coming to the Board as soon as possible.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 9 of 9
Packet Pg. 14
5.1
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/10/2022
BD Designated Street Front - Joint Meeting with the Economic Development Commission
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
This topic was introduced to the Planning Board on June 8, 2022 and to the Economic Development
Commission on July 20, 2022. Interim Ordinance 4262, including the revised Designated Street Front
map and clarified BD use table, expires on December 1, 2022 unless permanent standards are adopted
by that date. Alternatively, a work plan could be created to allow the interim standards to remain in
place for additional time while further BD code revisions are considered.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss the interim BD Designated Street Front map in Ordinance 4262 and the information provided by
the economic consultants in Attachments 6 -10. Provide direction to staff for preparing language for
inclusion in a permanent ordinance.
Narrative
The BD2 zone is identified as the Downtown Mixed Commercial zone in ECDC 16.43.010. Most of the
BD2 zone requires commercial uses within the first 45 feet of the designated street front (ECDC
16.43.030.B.7). Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street
front (ECDC 16.43.030.B.7). Where properties do not front on a designated street front as shown in
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front from BD Zones, any permitted use is allowed including residential
only buildings (Attachment 2). Some council members and public expressed concerns about residential
only buildings within a Mixed Commercial zone and wished to pursue extending the designated street
front in some locations.
The designated street front map in Exhibit A in Attachment 1 includes the interim amendments to the
designed street front map. The blue dotted areas are locations for extensions of the designated street
front while the solid blue are the currently mapped designated street fronts in Map 16.43-1. These
were identified as potential areas for expansion based on Council comments and review of the
legislative history of the designated street front. Council noted a desire to have commercial spaces
supporting the retail core where certain office uses are not allowed in the designated street front of BD1
zoned properties (ECDC 16.43.020.A Table 16.43-1). The legislative history for the designated street
front noted that some of the consideration for the designated street front were where pedestrian
activity was most prevalent and whether there were commercial uses on both sides of the street
(Attachment 2). The map in Ordinance 4262 Exhibit A extends the designated street front around the
retail core where there are commercial uses on both side of the street in the BD2 zones.
Packet Pg. 15
5.1
To understand the potential impacts of extending the designated street front, staff secured a consultant
to conduct a market demand analysis to evaluate 1) if the restrictions would inhibit the market demand
for residential development, 2) if there is existing market demand for a mixed commercial building and
3) if there is market demand for a solely commercial building in the BD2 zone.
The market demand analysis (Attachment 6) found that historically and currently the retail and office
market has been stable with the retail market the stronger of the two commercial uses based on the
Days on Market (DOM) indicator. The analysis found the rental market is in short supply (looking at a
downtown study area) and high demand.
The consultant work also looked at potential development examples (Attachment 8). With ground floor
height requirements in the designated street front, it is likely that mixed use developments with
commercial on the ground floor would lose a floor of rental units, impacting the financial feasibility of
potential developments.
The key finding from the study noted the risk associated with the long absorption time for the retail
spaces (average DOM at 276) coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would make
the mixed -use project not feasible for the average boutique developer.
Attachment 2 contains a legislative history of the designated street front and how it has changed over
the years. The last change to the designated street front occurred in 2011 with the adoption of
Ordinance No. 3865. During the 2011 review of the designated street fronts, the Planning Board held
joint meetings with the Economic Development Commission to review the extent of the designated
street fronts.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Interim BD Designated Street Front Map Ord. 4262
Attachment 2 - BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and Legislative Intent
Attachment 3 - 2022-04-19 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 4 - 2022-04-21 City Council Public Minutes
Attachment 5 - 2202-05-24 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 6 - Submarket Demand Analysis Final
Attachment 7 - OTAK Edmonds BD2 Zoning Recommendations
Attachment 8 - Color Renderings of Development Examples
Attachment 9 - Additional Research on Comparable Cities
Attachment 10 - BD2 Zoning Memo
Attachment 11- 6.8.22 PB excerpt minutes
Packet Pg. 16
5.1.a
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.4262
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED
THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH
ORDINANCES 4253, 4254, AND 4255.
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4247, which
established a moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for BD2 zoned lots
that do not front on a designated street front; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 4247 took effect on immediately on February 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4247 was scheduled to terminate on
April 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended six days by virtue of Ordinance 4253; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended two more times by virtue of Ordinances 4254 N
to
and 4255; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium extensions were intended to allow planning staff and the
city attorney sufficient time to research the history and legislative intent surrounding the BD
zones and to carefully evaluate the intent behind the designated street front regulations and the
ramifications of possible changes to those regulations, particularly in the BD2 zone; and
WHEREAS, that research led to a heightened understanding of the intent behind the BD
designated street front map and the BD permitted use table; and
WHEREAS, the history suggests that what was seen in 2011 as the logical limits of the
downtown commercial core may no longer fit the circumstances of 2022 due to the fact that
certain blocks are showing vibrant commercial activity right up to the edges of the designed
street front map; and
WHEREAS, the city council would like to encourage the continued vibrancy of the
downtown commercial core by expanding the limits of the designated street front map to require
at least some commercial use of new structures within the expansion area; and
WHEREAS, the city council would also like to remove an ambiguity in the permitted use
table; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Packet Pg. 17
5.1.a
Section 1. Designated Street Front Map Revision. Map 16.43-1, contained within
ECDC 16.43.030, and entitled "Designated Street Front for BD Zones," is hereby amended to
extend the designated street front as shown in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth (extended street fronts are shown in
crosshatch).
Section 2. BD Permitted Use Table Revision. Table 16.43-1, contained in ECDC
16.43.020, entitled "Uses," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth (new text is shown
in underline; deleted text is shown in kedffetigh)•
Section 3. Repeal of Moratorium. Ordinance 4247, which had established a
moratorium on certain development in the BD2 zone, and Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255 to
N
which collectively extended that moratorium through June 2, 2022, are collectively hereby -d
repealed.
Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations Adopted in Sections 1 and 2. The interim
regulations adopted by sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of
this ordinance. As long as the city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings
and conclusions in support of its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 5 herein),
this ordinance shall not terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is
repealed sooner.
Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on July 19, 2022 unless the
city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later
Packet Pg. 18
5.1.a
than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall
adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued
effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
C CLE , SCOVP
SSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADA
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 20, 2022
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: May 24, 2022
PUBLISHED: May 27, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 2022
N
t0
N
Packet Pg. 19
5.1.a
ORDINANCE NO. 4262 0
0
c
0
0
w
as
r
r
3
m
c
r
a�
m
0
r
c
0
L
U-
r
L
m
d
T
d
a
m
a
Packet Pg. 20
5.1.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4262
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 241h day of May, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.
4262. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES, SETTING
SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED
THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH
ORDINANCES 4253, 4254, AND 4255.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 24th day of May, 2022. o
m m
CLERK,S PASSEY
Packet Pg. 21
IIIIIII I
5.1.a
Designated Street Front
""NpDALEY
d
■■
.
w
Q
-3= i
�BD3
L WAY
LE ST
ALDE
DALEY ST
lz[=
w
�a'C o
o
U.
Z� c0
1 > BELL
o L
0 n
a
Y� W
um-
L
CO
a m
a L
f0� m
WALNUT �a�, ST
c
T
y.+
4)
E
t
c�
Q
C
d
E
t
C�
a
I Packet Pg. 22 1
Exhibit B
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Page 1/3
5.1.a
16.43.020 Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses
BD1
GBDI
BD2
BD3
BD4
BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales
A
A
A
A
A
A
Offices
A
X
A
A
A
A
Legal/law firms
A
X
A
A
A
A
Financial
A
X
\
A
A
A
Advising
A
X
A
A
A
A
Mortgage
A
X
A
A
A
A
Banks (without tellers)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Accounting
A
X
A
A
A
A
Counseling
A
X
A
A
A
A
Architecture
A
X
A
A
A
A
Engineering
A
X
A
A
A
A
Advertising
A
X
\
\
A
\
Insurance
A
X
\
\
A
A
Fitness related business (yoga/pilates/gym/fitness club)
A
X
\
A
A
A
Service uses
A
A«1
A
A
A
A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer
sales, used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy
equipment storage, sales or services
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property
as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service
establishment that also provides an on -site retail outlet open to the public
A
A
A
A
A
A
Automobile sales and service
X
X
A
A
X
X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive
cleaning agents
C
X
A
A
A
X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments
C
X
A
A
A
C
Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC'
A
A
A
A
A
A
Residential
Single-family dwelling
A
X
A
A
A
A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must he-, Inented onsecend floor or behind first ^ [ feet
fromside-walk or rights e f waysee ECDC 16.43.030.13 for further location
standards
A
X
A
A
A
A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters
A
A
A
A
A
A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
co
N
V
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Packet Pg. 23
Exhibit B
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code
Page 2/3
5.1.a
Permitted Uses
BD1
BDI
GFSF0)
BD2
BD3
BD4
BD5
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G)
through (R)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050
C
C
C
C
A
C
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted
master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
A
A
A
A
A
A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use
B
X
B
B
B
B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this
zone
B
X
B
B
B
X
Commercial parking lots
C
X
C
C
C
X
Wholesale uses
X
X
X
C
X
X
Hotels and motels
A
A
A
A
A
A
Amusement establishments
C
C
C
C
C
C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions
C
X
C
C
C
C
Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities)
X
X
C
A
C
X
Laboratories
X
X
C
C
C
X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use
X
X
X
C
X
X
Day-care centers
C
X
C
C
A
C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums
X
X
C
C
A
X
Medical uses, e.g.,
A
X
A
A
A
A
Physicians
A
X
A
A
A
A
Dental
A
X
a
A
A
A
Optometrist (without retail)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Physical therapy (without retail)
A
X
A
A
A
A
Counseling
A
X
\
1
1
1
Other similar medical services
A
X
\
1
1
\
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria
for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
A
A
A
A
A
A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for
regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
C
X
C
C
C
A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and
drug abusers
X
X
C
C
A
X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
C
C
C
C
C
C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use
D
X
D
D
D
D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC
X
X
D
D
D
D
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
N
co
N
V
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Packet Pg. 24
Exhibit B
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 3/3
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
NOTES:
(1) BD Zone GFSF = Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public
rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1:
Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings set back 15 feet or more from the sidewalk shall not be subject to
the BD Zone GFSF requirements.
(2) Services — by appointment uses not providing open door retail/dining/entertainment functions as a primary
component of the business are not allowed within BD 1 GFSF (first 45 feet). Open door businesses, e.g., real estate
offices, banks (with tellers and no drive-throughs), nail and hair salons are allowed.
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the criteria for
conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access shall only be
provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be landscaped to be
compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and contributes to
the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along street lot lines shall only be
permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and
when unavoidable due to the nature of the use shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the
following:
N
a. Architectural features or details; co
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping.
B. Exception to the BD GSFS. The owner of a building in the BD zone may apply for an exception from the
restrictions on offices and medical uses within the designated street front for leasable space meeting all of the
following criteria:
1. The space is less than 500 square feet;
2. The space does not contain direct access to the street or sidewalk;
3. The previous use was a nonconforming use (e.g., not retail); and
4. The space has been vacant for a period of more than six months. [Ord. 3955 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3932 §
6, 2013; Ord. 3918 § 1 (Att. 1), 2013; Ord. 3894 § 4, 2012; Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4235, passed October 12, 2021.
Packet Pg. 25
5.1.a
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH955511 ORD NO 4262 4263
as it was published in the regular and entire
issue of said paper and not as a supplement
form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 05/27/2022 and
ending on 05/27/2022 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers Linda Phillips
during all of said period. Morary Public
EMYte of VVashinroton
l"'r"C"i �,;liiM$ El2;l2025
The amount the fee fors h publicarion is ip:lon tiunibe, 4417
$34.40.
Subscribed and sworn
7� day of
before, a on this
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
City of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416
NICHOLASAALK
N
W
N
9t
Packet Pg. 26
5.1.a
Classified Proof
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
of" City of Edmonds, Washiroon
On me 241h day of Mayy, 2 ,'Q the Clly Cduft" of the Cily o}
EdRtnncu. p'dB9ad If}a follkI drdlna 11. 1fr6 atmmades Of Bail
Ordinances tonslsiing QI int are Provided "foftwe:
OR iNAN NO.42B
AN CROINANCE CIF I DS, WASHINGTON.
ESTABLISHING INTERIM ZONING FOR THE BD ZONES,
SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
ORDINANCE, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS
ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED
THROUGH ORDINANCES 425a. 4264. AND 4255,
AN ORDINANCE OF�NRNE 4 OS, WASH INGTON,
AMENDING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 1830 FCDC,
ENTITLED '$TO RMWATE R MANAGEMENT,' IN ITS ENT1RE7Y.
The full Vaxl of these ordnance will be sent upon requrat
DATED this 241h Day of May.2022.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Published: May 27, 2022- EDH956511
N
t0
N
Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 05/27/2022 01:23:13 pm Page: 2
Packet Pg. 27
5.1.b
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
April 13, 2022
City Council
Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
BD2 Zone Development within the Designated Street Front and
Legislative Intent
Multifamily Only Development in the BD2 Zone
The City Council has questioned whether the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
allows multifamily residential only buildings within the BD2 zone. Based on a complete reading
of Chapter 16.43 ECDC, staff and the city attorney have concluded that the current BD2 zoning
regulations allow multifamily residential only buildings in the areas of the BD2 zone that do not
front on the streets mapped as the designated street front.
According to ECDC 16.43.020 multifamily dwelling units are a permitted primary use within the
BD2 zone. While the use table is ambiguous by containing language that multiple dwelling units
"must be located on the second floor or behind the first 45 feet from the sidewalk or rights -of -
way" a complete reading of Chapter 16.43 ECDC and an analysis of its history (see below) make
it clear that the locational restriction in the use table should only apply to properties within the
BD1 zone. We do acknowledge, however, that this ambiguity should be eliminated with a
clarifying amendment in the near future.
16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1
Permitted Uses
BDl
GFD1
BD2
BD3
BD4
BDS
Residential
Single-family dwelling
A
X
A
A
A
A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) — must be located on second floor or behind first 45 feet
A
X
A
A
A
A
from sidewalk or rights -of -way
A = Permitted primary use
X = Not permitted
Page 1 of 13
Packet Pg. 28
5.1.b
(1) BD Zone GFSF— Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights-of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as
defined under Edmonds Community Development Code Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones. Buildings setback 15 feet or more
from the sidewalk shall not be subject to the BD1 Zone GFSF requirements.
Within the use table there is a column for the BD1 GFSF which specifically prohibits the
multifamily dwelling units within the BD1 GFSF. Footnote one under the table defines the BD1
GFSF as the Ground Floor Designated Street Frontage (first 45 feet measured from public rights-
of-way/sidewalk or parks/plazas) as defined under Edmonds Community Development Code
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones.
Footnote 3 under the development standards table ECDC 16.43.030.A Table 16.43-2 specifically
acknowledges that there may be an entirely residential building in the BD zones and when those
are located in the BD4 zone, the must apply the RM-1.5 setbacks. If the "must be located ..."
language in the table were intended to apply to all BD zones, instead of just BD1, this footnote
could not be reconciled with the table, because it would not be possible to have an entirely
residential building in the BD4 zone.
All the ground floor discussions in Chapter 16.43 ECDC are related to the area that is within the
designated street front. ECDC 16.43.030.13.1 provides:
For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is closest
in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is
principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the
adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground "floor" is considered to be
the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are
closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of "ground
floor" contained in ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply.
ECDC 16.43.030.13.2 further elaborates on the designated street front:
Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street
front for all properties lying within the BD zones. The designated street front is defined as the
45 feet measured perpendicular to the street front of the building lot fronting on each of the
mapped streets. (Map 16.43-1 provided on next page).
Subsections of ECDC 16.43.030.133 through 13.6 include restrictions that pertain to development
within the designated street front. ECDC 16.43.030.13.7 specifically address development within
the designated street front of the BD2 and BD3 zones noting:
Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on
the ground floor outside of the designated street front.
While the "must be located ..." language in the table has allowed some to argue that multi-
family residential is only a permitted use "on second floor or behind first 45 feet from sidewalk
Page 2 of 13
Packet Pg. 29
5.1.b
or rights -of -way," the source of that language (Ordinance 3955) and the other changes that
were made to the permitted use table at that time, strongly suggest that that limitation was not
intended to apply outside the BD1 zone. Therefore, where there is no designated street front,
the entire ground floor may allow any permitted use. Since multifamily development is a
permitted primary use according to ECDC 16.43.020 Uses. A. Table 16.43-1, properties within
the BD2, BD4 and BD5 zones that are outside of a designated street front may be entirely
residential (Note: There are no BD3 zone properties that do not contain at least some
designated street front).
Below is a review of the legislative history which provides support for this code interpretation.
Page 3 of 13
Packet Pg. 30
5.1.b
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zones
Page 4 of 13
Imil
n
T
Packet Pg. 31
5.1.b
Ordinance No. 3624 (2007)
The first ordinance to establish the BD zones was Ordinance No. 3624. There was no reference
to a designated street front in the first version of the BD zones, but there are some hints as to
what was intended for use on the ground floor.
ECDC 16.43.030.B.1 (all code refences in this portion of the memo are to the version of the code
adopted in Ord. No. 3624) provided:
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of
buildings in the BD zones.
1. When a commercial use is located on the ground floor, the elevation of the ground
floor and associated entry shall be within 7 inches of the grade level of the adjoining
sidewalk. "Grade" shall be as measured at the entry location.
The use of "when" suggests something other than commercial use could be used on the ground
floor. And, in fact, that appears to have been the case at least in BD5, and arguably in BD4.
ECDC 16.43.030.B.3 further elaborated on ground floor commercial use noting:
3. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses. Within the BD2, and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist
of only commercial uses to a minimum building depth of 60 feet, as measured from
the street front of the building.
In Ordinance 3624, BD1 is required to be all commercial uses on the ground floor, but in the BD2
and BD3 zones, only the first 60 feet were required to be commercial.
Regarding the BD4 zone, ECDC 16.43.030.B.4 provided additional flexibility. And footnote 3 of
ECDC 16.43.030.A expressly contemplates an "entirely residential building."
Similarly, the code relating to the BD5 zone and commercial space provides the option to provide
commercial as noted for the BD2 zone in ECDC 16.43.030.2, but provides more detail when that
cannot be met (orientation to the street and encouraging live/work type development).
Interim Ordinance No. 3691 (20
In 2008 there was a request for an official interpretation regarding ground floor commercial use
in the BD1 zone. The interpretation (2008-1 BD1 ground floor) was challenged, which lead to
further discussion on the ground floor use at city council. Upon review of the interpretation, City
Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 3691 and referred the matter to the Planning Board for
further review. Ordinance No. 3691 added new section ECDC 16.43.035 which provided:
Page 5 of 13
Packet Pg. 32
5.1.b
16.43.035 Application of requirements to the 1313-1 zone.
The application and interpretation of Chapter 16.43 BD Downtown Business to any
development permit or application within the BD-1 zone shall conform to the requirements
of this section. These requirements are enacted in order to clarify the intent of the City
Council and the application of existing language of the Code. In the event of conflict or
ambiguity with any provision of this chapter, or the definition sections of the Community
Development Code, these provisions shall control.
The ground floor of the development in the BD-1 zone shall be devoted entirely to
commercial uses as provided by the first sentence of ECDC 16.43.030(B)(3). The ground floor
shall be no less than fifteen feet in height measured in accordance with ECDC
16.43.030. Except to the minimum extent necessary to exercise the rights granted pursuant
to ECDC 16.43.030(B)(2)(b),1 the ground floor shall be in one plane, extending the entire
width and breadth of the building.
Discussions leading up to the adoption of this interim ordinance (07.15.2008, 07.22.2008)
focused on the ceiling height of the ground floor what could happen behind the commercial
space.
Ordinance No. 3700 (2008)
The Planning Boards review of the ground floor
commercial requirements forwarded to them by the
Council with Interim Ordinance No. 3691 resulted in
Ordinance No. 3700 and the first map of the
designated street front. While the map of the
designated street front only required properties
within the BD1 zone to have a 30 foot deep
designated street front, the language in the text of
the ordinance described a designated street front
throughout all of the BD zones. Ordinance No. 3700
also added clarification that for the purpose of the
"ground floor" requirements of the BD zones, this was
related to the finish grade along a designated street
front. ECDC 16.43.030.13 adopted by Ordinance No.
3700 provided:
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front far Properties in the BDl Zane
r
.I--- !o 'IIIII ,
MEN Jo �� 1■1I
®' Designated Street Front (depth of 30 leetme-d perpendicular tc property line)
B. Ground Floor. This section describes
requirements for development of the ground floor of buildings in the BD zones.
1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is
closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure
i ECDC 16.43.030(B)(2)(b) stated, at that time, as follows: "The building may be broken up into multiple frontages,
so that each entry /ground floor combination is within 7 inches of the grade of the sidewalk."
Page 6 of 13
Packet Pg. 33
5.1.b
that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building ( this is c
normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground " floor"
U_
is considered to be the sum of the floor planes which, in combination, run the full
extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one another. For the purposes of
Cn
this Chapter, the definition of "ground floor" contained in ECDC 21. 35. 017 does not
apply.
2. Designated street front. Map .16. 43 - 1 shows the designated street front (emphasis
0
in the original) for all properties lying within the BD1 zone, which is 30 feet measured
o
perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot. For all other BD zones,
m
the designated street front is established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured
r
perpendicular to any street right -of -way, excluding alleys. a
The final sentence of B.2, above is particularly important to understanding today's code because
it shows that, starting in 2008 (with Ordinance 3700), every BD zoned property had some form
of designated street front. (This would change in 2011.) Ordinance No. 3700 also added clarifying
language on what uses could occur outside of the designated street front. In ECDC 16.43.030.B.6
and B.7:
6. Within the BD 1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located
within the designated street front.
7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located
on the ground floor outside of the designated street front.
Properties within the BD1 are required to only be commercial use on the ground floor (with the
exception of parking behind the designated street front), while the BD2 and BD3 zones could
have any permitted use outside of the designated street front. Note that the permitted use table
in Ordinance 3700 identified "multiple dwelling units" as a "permitted primary use" in the BD2
zone. Hence, because every BD2 zoned property had a 60-foot-deep designated street front,
multiple dwelling units could not be located within that front 60-foot area of the ground floor.
That area had to be commercial.
Residential uses outside of the designated street front were explicitly discussed at the Planning
Board. Below is an excerpt from the August 13, 2008 Planning Board meeting:
Board Member Lovell summarized that the existing code requires that the entire ground floor
of a project in the BD1 zone be dedicated to commercial space. However, the BD2 and BD3
zones only require commercial space to a depth of 60 feet, measured from the front of a
building. Mr. Chave agreed that in the BD2 and BD3 zones, residential uses could be
constructed behind the 60 foot deep commercial area. The area could also be used for
parking space.
The Board agreed to move forward with a public hearing on this proposed amendment.
Page 7 of 13
Packet Pg. 34
5.1.b
• Clarify the uses allowed on the ground floor located behind the first 60 feet. Parking
should be allowed behind the first 60 feet. In addition, the BD2 and BD3 zones should
continue to allow residential uses behind the first 60 feet.
Ordinance No. 3700 also clarified that the designated street front and the ground floor
requirements did not apply to corner lots at the edge of the BD1 district (Council minutes
10.21.2008). A discussion on this issue is captured in the Planning Board's September 10, 2008
meeting minutes:
5. Clarify that for corner lots, the 45-foot requirement noted above would not apply to
street fronts of buildings when they are located on side streets at the edge of the BD1 zone
district. However, all street fronts along Main and 4th will always have the 45-foot
requirements applied, corner or not. This can be accomplished by means of a specific map
showing where the designated street front of each lot in the BD1 zone is located.
Mr. Chave clarified that the 45-foot minimum depth requirement would not apply to street
fronts of buildings that are located on side streets of properties on the periphery of the BD1
zone. He displayed a map that was prepared by staff to identify where the 45-foot minimum
depth requirement would not be applied. Board Member Dewhirst said he is unclear as to
the intent behind this proposed amendment. If the properties at the corner of 6th Avenue
and Main Street and 5th Avenue and Walnut Street are not required to provide commercial
space on both street fronts, the City would be giving up the potential to provide good
commercial space in the downtown area. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that it would not be
necessary to require commercial space to loop around the corner at 6th Avenue and Main
Street, because 6th Avenue is not a well traveled commercial corridor. Board Member
Dewhirst disagreed. Mr. Chave noted that at 6th Avenue, once you get off of Main Street the
uses become more residential and office in nature. Board Member Dewhirst agreed that
office and residential uses exist today, but the Board must also keep in mind their desires for
the future. He noted that the residential developments would generate a lot of pedestrian
traffic past the corner of 6th Avenue and Main Street. Chair Guenther reminded the Board
that the Comprehensive Plan indicates the City's goal is to encourage retail and commercial
growth from the heart of the downtown to the waterfront. Mr. Chave agreed and said the
Comprehensive Plan also talks about connecting the commercial uses to the arts center on
4th Avenue.
Board Member Reed suggested, and the remainder of the Board concurred, that the
proposed amendment should be changed to make it clear that the provision would not apply
to properties on the western periphery of the BD1 zone since the goal is to encourage
connectively to the waterfront.
Note that the map ultimately adopted as part of Ordinance 3700 does not show a designated
street front on 6t" Avenue. So, the planning board and council appear to have agreed with Mr.
Chave on that point. But the map does show the designated street front wrapping around from
Page 8 of 13
Packet Pg. 35
5.1.b
Main Street onto 3rd Avenue. This Planning Board discussion is important as we consider the
changes made subsequently under Ordinance No. 3865, because it was clear) understood at the -
g q Y Y �i
time that development requirements, even on the same parcel and within the same zone, would
depend on the mapped designated street front.
Cn
a�
Upon return the City Council, the discussion focused on the appropriate depth of the designated
street front (10.21.2008 Council minutes). °1
m
0
Ordinance No. 3865 (2011) o
m
On August 11, 2010, several topics related to the BD zones were discussed with the CS/DS Council
Committee. It was noted that that there were several items staff wished to initiate to clean up
in the existing downtown BD zones, such as the required depth of commercial uses, the zoning
requirements along the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, and clarifying where the commercial street
frontages are outside of the BD1 zone (CS/DS minutes 08.11.2010). These matters were referred
to the Planning Board and Economic Development Commission for review. Many of the
discussions focused on the allowed uses within the BD1 zone, particularly what uses should be
allowed as retail. The analysis below focuses on discussions related to the designated street
front.
When the issue was introduced to the Planning Board, it was noted:
...the designated street fronts are mapped for the BD1 zones, but not for the other BD zones.
At this time, the BD1 zone has a 30 foot commercial depth requirement, while elsewhere
the requirement is 60 feet. Staff is recommending the provisions have a more consistent
framework. For example, the mapping should expand to cover other BD zones, and the
commercial depth requirement should not be greater in the BD zones outside of BD1. (PB
03.09.2011 minutes)
On introduction, the commercial depths requirements were identified for the different zones,
and the designated street front mapping change was described as an expansion. At the joint
meeting with the Planning and Economic Development Commission it was clarified that the
designated street front map identifies area where the commercial depth requirement would be
applicable:
Mr. Chave advised that the proposed amendments also include an update of the Designated
Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1), which identifies all designated street fronts within the BD
zones for which the commercial depth requirement would be applicable. He noted that the
map was originally adopted for the BD1 zone, but staff is recommending to include all BD
zones. (Joint PB/EDC 04.13.2011 minutes)
So, like the original mapping of the designated street front in Ord. 3700, it is recognized that the
commercial requirements only are required in the mapped designated street front. At the June
8, 2011 Planning Board public hearing it was noted that:
Page 9 of 13
Packet Pg. 36
5.1.b
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the proposed map of Designated Street Fronts for BD Zones
0
(Map 16.43-1), which has been expanded to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. The
purpose of the map is to clarify where the primary pedestrian areas and commercial uses are
Cn
intended to be oriented within the BD Zones. He explained that ground floor of properties
along designated street fronts would be required to meet the commercial height and depth
requirements. 0
m
0
And... o
m
He reminded the Board that multi -family residential and professional offices would be
allowed to locate on the portions of ground floor space located outside of the designated
street front areas and on the upper floors of all buildings in the BD Zones. (06.08.2011 PB
minutes)
On questioning a specific area on the map, it was noted if it were not mapped as designated
street front, the area is made available for other types of uses:
Chair Lovell referred to the proposed Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1) and
recalled the Board previously discussed that a portion of the street front on 5th Avenue
between Howell Way and Erben Drive has a steep topography and is not really an ideal
location for retail uses. It was suggested that this area should not be designated as
commercial street front. Mr. Chave recalled this was discussed by the Board and the Citizens
Economic Development Commission (CEDC) at a joint meeting. He said staff recommends
that the designated street front extend all the way up 5th Avenue to the end of the BD3
zone. Otherwise, the area would be made available for other types of uses that are not
compatible with retail and/or commercial uses. (06.08.2011 PB Minutes).
This discussion of "other types of uses" being "made available" in the BD3 zone by virtue of a
possible map change demonstrates that the Planning Board was aware that other than
commercial uses would be permitted on properties outside of the designated street front and
that they considered what the appropriate extent of the designated street front map should be
given those possible "other types of uses."
More discussion on the designated street front occurred at the July 26, 2011 City Council
meeting, the minutes of which provide insight into the Council's understanding of the designated
street map. The following are excerpts from those minutes (pages 5 and 6 have the most helpful
passages):
Councilmember Petso referred to the identifying street fronts (page 111 of the packet) where
there is one parcel on 2nd Avenue extending north from Main Street that has the blue line
designating the street front on only a portion of the parcel. Mr. Chave explained when the
lines were drawn, consideration was given to commercial streets and the designated street
front were identified in areas where there are commercial uses on both sides or there is a
Page 10 of 13
Packet Pg. 37
5.1.b
long history of commercial use in the vicinity. The EDC and ultimately Planning Board may
reconsider the area south of 5th beyond Howell Way. In the core area the intent was to avoid
extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential
uses or wrapping around corners where there is commercial only on one side.
Councilmember Petso asked when this particular property at the corner of 2nd and Main
develops, will it be required to have a designated street front all the way along 2nd, part of
the way along 2nd or none of the way on 2nd. Mr. Chave advised in areas where there is not
a designated street front, the requirement for a 45 foot depth does not apply and any of
the uses allowed by the zone would be permitted.
On a property where hypothetically the blue line stopped in the middle of a parcel,
Councilmember Petso asked whether the parcel has a designated street front or only has a
designated street front as far as the blue line extends. Mr. Chave answered the designated
street front only extends as far as the blue line. If it splits a parcel, only the portion of the
parcel where the blue line is has a designated street front. The designated street fronts are
tied to street sections rather than property lines. (07.26.2011 Council Minutes)
Further on there is discussion on reasoning for the extent of the designated street front and that
ultimately it is a matter of legislative discretion:
Student Representative Gibson asked whether it would be fairer to everyone else if the blue
line extended through the entire property rather than stopping halfway through the
property. Mr. Chave answered the concept behind the designated street front is to identify
portions of downtown where there is the strongest commercial activity. There are certain
main pedestrian arterials, along Main, down 5th, and somewhat on Dayton, that tend to be
the main corridors. However, outside those main corridors, the question arises if commercial
is required, how far off the corridor commercial will it be viable. Especially in areas where
one side of the street is residential, requiring commercial on the opposite side lessens its
viability. When people walk down a commercial street, they like to see activity on both sides.
He summarized determining how far the requirement for commercial activity should extend
is a judgment call, the reason this is a legislative matter.
And...
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the designated street front on 4th Avenue
extends to Daley Street although it is residential past Bell Street, yet on 2nd Avenue it is cut
off a block short of James and mid -block south of Bell. Mr. Chave answered beyond Dayton
there is a consistent block on the south side of 4th versus 3rd where there is only one large
building on the east side and only a small corner on the west side. He reiterated it is a
judgment call; the Council could revise the locations of the designated street fronts.
(07.26.2011 Council minutes)
Page 11 of 13
Packet Pg. 38
5.1.b
Testimony offered during the public hearing also sheds light on the council's understanding of c
the proposal before them. U_
L
Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the downtown BD2 zone, acknowledged his
Cn
interest may be more personal than other speakers. He expressed support for the
proposed amendment with regard to the designated street front; extending the
designated street front down Main Street to ensure a consistent look down Main and up 0
the side streets that cross Main but still allow flexibility on the outer portions of the o
zoning that in some cases face a mixed residential zone. In his experience, renting o
m
commercial space on the edges of the commercial zone is virtually impossible; he has
had a vacancy for four years. a
The minutes of the July 26, 2011 public hearing on Ordinance 3865 strongly suggest that the City
Council understood that non-commercial uses would be allowed, even in the front 45-feet of the
ground floor, outside of the designated street front. It was also made clear that this mapping was
a subjective exercise and that the Council had the legislative discretion to alter the designated
street front maps if it saw fit to do so.
The legislative intent of the adoption of the designated street front maps is clear. The ground
floor commercial requirements only apply within the designated street front. Outside of the
designated street, any permitted use may be allowed. And, prior to Ordinance 3955, multiple
dwelling units were unambiguously allowed in the BD2 zone.
Ordinance No. 3955 (2014)
The primary confusion on the residential -only interpretation results from the addition of this
phrase to the permitted use table in ECDC 16.43.020.A: "must be located on second floor or
behind first 45 feet from sidewalk or rights -of -way". That language was inserted with the
adoption of Ordinance No. 3955.
Discussions on the code revisions associated with Ord. 3955 were a continuation of the BD1
retail use discussions initiated in 2011, which resulted in Ord. 3865. The discussions around this
ordinance were solely related to clarifying the allowed retail uses in the BD1 zone which is
apparent from a reading of the title of Ord. No. 3955:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.43.020 RELATING TO LIMITING CERTAIN
OFFICE USES FROM LOCATING IN BUSINESS SPACES ALONG DESIGNATED GROUND FLOOR
STREET FRONTAGES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS 1 (BD1 — DOWNTOWN RETAIL
CORE) ZONE.
From review of the Planning Board minutes, it is apparent that the locational restrictions inserted
into Table 16.43-1 were intended to be added as a clarifying footnote.
Page 12 of 13
Packet Pg. 39
5.1.b
Board Member Lovell requested an explanation of how the proposal would impact a property
owner's ability to provide multi -family residential uses. Mr. Clifton answered that residential
uses would not be allowed within the areas designated as BD1 GFSF. However, residential
uses would be allowed behind the 45-foot street front spaces and in the upper floors. Mr.
Chave suggested that it might be helpful to add a reference in the footnote to the applicable
chapter in the code to provide more clarity. (09.11.2013 PB Minutes)
While this clarifying footnote ultimately proved to cause the confusion present today, it was
probably an indication of the caution with which the Planning Board was approaching this
proposed new allowance of residential in any portion of the BD1 ground floor. Keep in mind that
prior to Ordinance 3955, no residential would have been allowed on any portion of the BD1
ground floor. So, this was a significant change that would likely have caused some concern. But
in this effort to be extra cautious with BD1, the ambiguity that the "must be located" phrase
created for other zones was overlooked.
The fact that Ordinance 3955 was solely focused on BD1 is also underscored by other rows of the
permitted use table. On page 5 of Ordinance 3955, there are several rows added to the table to
describe the various types of office uses that are not allowed in the BD1 GFSF. But note that those
rows aren't even completed for the other BD zones. This corroborates the conclusion that
Ordinance 3955 was not intended to make any changes outside of the BD1 zone. Several of the
whereas clauses also mention only the BD1 zone as opposed to all of the BD zones.
When these code amendments were presented to the City Council (November 4, 2013 and
January 7, 2014) there was no discussion on limiting residential use in all BD zones. Rather, all
the discussion was focused on retail uses within the BD1 zone.
rnnrlucinn
Given the legislative history around designated street front, it is clear that the City Council was
aware that all permitted uses may be allowed outside the BD2 designated street front.
Furthermore, the insertion of locational restrictions for multifamily dwelling units into Table
16.43-1 was intended only to apply to the BD1 zone. Therefore the legislative history supports
the interpretation that a multifamily -only development may be located in the BD2 zone if the
property does not abut one of the mapped designated street fronts.
Page 13 of 13
Packet Pg. 40
5.1.c
with the auditor the City's hired to review those numbers. It is not as simple as looking at the incoming
number of cases, it is also the things being juggled and the ones in the system appearing for probation. If
that trend continues, SCPDA will reduce staffing in Edmonds and reduce public defender costs.
Councilmember L. Johnson said two things stood out to her including Ms. Kyle's comment about the
most vulnerable may have the worst outcome and not using the criminal justice system for systemic
issues. When talking about poverty and specifically those who are unhoused and everything that comes
with that, she asked what is the best way to address that. Some people are very uncomfortable with seeing
people who are unhoused and want it addressed in a certain way. Ms. Kyle said housing is the key; if the
intent is housing the unhoused, they need a home to go to, but that requires being creative as it is not a
one size fits all. For example, someone who is unhoused because they are autistic and no longer have
family support, need a different housing option than a shelter with ambient noise that may dysregulate an
autistic person but would be good for a person who just needs recovery as being in a community can be a
positive for people in recovery. It is important to see people as individuals and recognize their strengths.
Generalizations are used as a way to wrap our head around things, but these are human beings who are
complex and have the possibility of success.
Ms. Kyle continued, one of the hardest parts of working with unhoused populations is many of them have
lost hope. As one thinks of a chronically unhoused person or someone who doesn't want help, it is
because they have been harmed previously and are taking survival protective action and maybe the
behaviors that people don't like to see is just that trauma showing up and they need to be asked about
their path. There are 41 navigation teams in Snohomish County; there needs to be housing to navigate
them to. Creating opportunities through education is important; Edmonds College has some great low
barrier programs to help with basics such as how to sign up for medical insurance, how to get into
college, etc. Every year of education is likely a protective action and the less likely a person will be her
client and more likely they will be out in the community earning a living and supporting themselves. The
City is trying to be creative such as establishing the community court and a court calendar for people to
get relicensed and consider their ability to pay. The highest crime they see referred is Theft III; getting
creative around diversion programs for simple thefts is important. The stereotypical way of thinking is
that if people are punished, they will stop the behavior. However, as public defenders they see that
punishment does not change behavior, relationships change behavior and their needs to be investment in
those relationships.
Mayor Nelson thanked Ms. Kyle for sharing their social worker with the City's homelessness taskforce
earlier this year.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION AS
ITEM 8.1 AND TO RENUMBER THE REMAINING COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEMS. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for in -person audience comments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 41
5.1.c
Christi Flynn, Edmonds, representing her husband and her neighbors the McLaughlin, spoke about
Perrinville Creek, fish, City structures and their properties. Their properties, west of Talbot Road at the
end of Perrinville Creek before it goes beneath the railroad tracks, have been significantly impacted by
the creek in the last two years. Exhibit A in her handout is an overview map from a report the City did in
2010 studying similar issues. Increased heavy rain events and resulting stormwater runoff create
damaging high water flows in the creek when coupled with the undersized and/or improperly maintained
City structures, culverts and crossings. Tons of sediment, large rocks and wood debris are flushed
downstream choking out potential salmon habitat and damaging properties. For the last 18 months, they
have been working with the Edmonds public works department to find a long term solution to the
flooding, fish habitat and property destruction. They seek a collaborative and cooperative process with all
the stakeholders involved.
Ms. Flynn continued, they strongly believe any plan for the creek must include the following, 1) they
basically agreed to a concept shown or known as option/alignment C in the handout in 2021. However,
details such as making it more natural looking, more sinuous, possibly backup bypass issues and
maintenance issues may need to be worked out. 2) a mitigation plan or diversion plan for the huge volume
of water and sediment that flows through the creek during heavy rainfall events. Former Public Works
Director Phil Williams informed them that 73% of the water in the creek originates in Lynnwood. During
heavy rain events, rushing waters erode the banks in South County Park sending tons of sand and rock
through the creek which end up damming and blocking the City's structures in the creek and ruining any
hope of salmon habitat. 3) a substantially improved culvert or crossing under the railroad tracks. 4)
replace and lower the culvert under Talbot Road. The current configuration is a barrier to high flows
downstream and any fish migration upstream. As property owners, they want to work with the City and
all stakeholders in a common-sense approach. It is does not make sense to carve out a new, temporary
creek bed through their properties. She submitted written materials
Chris Walton, Edmonds, referenced the project at Main Street & 6t'', and said consideration needs to be
given to where the town wants to be in 10-20 years and have a vision for that. He was concerned because
developers and real estate development organizations throughout the region are changing the town fast
and not necessarily in a great way. They have a lot of money and can influence people who make
decisions; the only thing that can be done to slow the negative effects of developers is to have very good
codes, a vision, and a good architectural review board that keeps them from using the maximization of
profits as the only goal. He was not anti -business, but the reality is maximizing profits results in pushing
the limits of codes as far as possible. He felt Main Street was a good example of where the City is not
headed in the next 10-20 years, where there will be an immensely dense downtown with a lot of people in
condos, very limited businesses with only high end restaurants and wine bars, and pushing out the type of
businesses that are needed in Edmonds. He urged the council to create a solid vision and communicate
that vision to the engineering groups creating the codes to preserve the quality of Edmonds going
forward.
Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, commented Edmonds is a small town with historic roots. It is a suburb and
not Seattle which is why people are drawn to live and visit. The business core is very small and now BD2
is not required to have a commercial first floor. She cited a comment from the developer that the high
density of the proposed project is seen as a guide for further development allowed and encouraged by the
comprehensive plan. She asked if there was a secret plan to change the zoning and increase density for
RM 1.5 on this square blook and for the rest of Edmonds. After reading through all the ordinances and
council meetings, there is never enough time set aside to have a clear and transparent City plan to align
the wishes of the residents with the need to increase the density for revenue. Everything is pushed through
without attention to detail or consideration of the ramifications on surrounding properties. She questioned
why these three lots downtown were mixed commercial if the intent was always to allow multifamily
building. Ordinance 3955 clearly states permitted residential uses for downtown mixed commercial are
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 9
Packet Pg. 42
5.1.c
single family dwelling and multiple dwelling units but they have to be located on the second floor behind
the first 45 feet from the sidewalks. Staff has said that was not the intent of the ordinance, it was different
than what was written further on, apparently an interpretation. As she understood it from a legal
perspective, intent is not the law. Clarifying it now after the fact when this is a current development issue
cannot be legal, there is too much doublespeak. Citizens deserve clarity and to know the true intent of the
mayor's intention and his direction to staff.
Ms. Fireman asked that the emergency ordinance be extended so that design standards can be properly
addressed. She was not asking for the ordinance to be extended for a maximum of six months and not to
have the developer and his architect involved as it is a conflict of interest. If it takes a year or more, so be
it; the city council has the power to have it done right once and for all. Interim and future design features
should require the scale be addressed; scale is the relationship of a building in terms of size, height, bulk,
density and aesthetics to its surroundings. A building scale is contextual in nature and is a key factor in
determining how well it blends in with the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan says stereotype, boxy,
multiple unit residential buildings are to be avoided and it's essential that commercial developments
continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character that the citizens of Edmonds so
strongly desire to retain. She questioned what else was waiting in the pipeline that would use these
interim design standards before the design standards and comprehensive plan is looked at again and how
long will that take and whether it would be after all the 25 identified parcels had been developed. She
gestured toward a wall in council chambers, stating it likely was not even 25 feet high; looking across
from her condo, the wall will be 40 feet high and she will not be any further away from it than the chairs.
Greg Brewer, Edmonds, said an important decision is about to be made concerning permittable uses in
BD2 mixed commercial zone. If 100% residential is allowed to be built there, the ability to protect and
grow diversity and equity in that important zone is at stake. Losing ground floor commercial will have
devastating effects on the ability of businesses to grown and thrive in a zone set aside for them by the
predecessors. Ground floor commercial must be protected. The City is changing rapidly as more
restaurants and services fill the downtown core extending up Main Street to the BD2 zone. With the new
construction of the Commons on the corner and Civic Park nearby, the intersection at 6t' & Main will
soon have an even greater prominence for the downtown. It is indeed the eastern gateway to the
downtown business district. As he read through the memorandum that City planners and city attorney put
together to justify 100% residential, he saw more evidence toward keeping ground floor commercial in
the BD2 zone. Both sides of Main Street east of 6t' currently have businesses with 9 on the north side and
at least 2 on the south side, an extension of the business corridor. Eliminating commercial on the north
side will permanently destroy this corridor.
Mr. Brewer referred to page 11, paragraph 1 of the memorandum which states, in the core area the intent
was to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses.
There are few residential uses near this intersection. Conversely, designated street fronts should be
reserved for areas where there are businesses on both sides of the street. It makes perfect sense to extend
the line east on Main and include this part of the BD2 zone. There are a couple areas of town where this
extension could help clarify the code and eliminate the need to rewrite spot zoning for BD2 areas left
behind. Regarding the blue line identifying the designated street front, on page 12 it states council has the
legislative discretion to alter the designated street front map if it sees fit to do so. Recognizing it as a no
brainer; he asked the council to extend the line and save the eastern gateway to the downtown core for
business on the ground floor. Businesses are already across the street and it is by far the easiest way to
clean up the confusion.
Jenna Jotika Nand, Edmonds, spoke regarding a troubling trend of underage prostitution along the
Highway 99 corridor, specifically being facilitated by bikini barista shops. She interviewed multiple
young women who claim they are of age but look to be between 12 and 14 years old. These young
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 10
Packet Pg. 43
5.1.c
women are heavily tattooed and are often functionally illiterate. This is a scrouge in the community where
she grew up and was a girl scout, not a place where girls are supposed to be selling sex in barista shops
claiming they are 18 years old when they have clearly not even gone through puberty. This is a very
sensitive topic that has to be approached in a way that the young girls do feel they are being criminalized
but to target the pimps. She would like the City to make an effort to review business licenses and L&I
compliance with all of these underage prostitution joints that are springing up on Highway 99, specifically
in the Edmonds section of Highway 99, but it is a problem from Everett to Seattle. She was shocked to
see one of these prostitution joints spring up in Edmonds.
Robert Stivers, Edmonds, said he loves living in Edmonds has been here for nearly a half century.
Downtown is like one of Rick Steves' precious backdoors to Europe but in the USA and its history goes
back to the 19t' century. A visitor once compared it to Main Street in Disneyland, only more real. It is his
go -to place for shopping and services; he loves stopping at Teri's Toybox to see the latest models of
exotic animals, seeing what David Varnau and Andy Eccleshall have created, the wonders of geology in
the Wishing Stone, buying a gift card for his wife at Sound Styles, and getting train tickets at the Amtrak
station, all essentially public spaces, one of the reasons why cities exist. Edmonds has a pedestrian scale
vibrant downtown and public spaces like parks and playing fields. The City needs more public spaces as
the population increases especially downtown; it does not make sense to increase one without increasing
the other. The proposed development flies in the face of this; it is the beginning of the alteration of
downtown Edmonds culture. He urged the council not to erode space dedicated to public uses or erode
downtown Edmonds with increased population without also providing this type of space. He also did not
want to walk under private balconies having lived in New York City too long for that, or go by streetside
private reserves even down an alley. He supported utilizing for private use the most underutilized of all
developable spaces in the modern city, the rooftops. Acknowledging it would cost more for a developer,
the future of downtown Edmonds is at stake and the result will be a healthier and cleaner downtown with
public spaces to accommodate all who want to visit and the preservation of the unique Edmonds
downtown culture.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, spoke regarding the BD2 moratorium and BD2 design standards. The
minutes of the April 2, 2013 city council meeting are clear, only BD4 was presented to the council with
having two options, either commercial on the ground floor or multifamily only. She quoted from page 7
where Rob Chave stated clearly for the councilmembers to understand, "in the BD4 there are two options,
a commercial building that requires the 15 foot step -back or a multifamily building up to 30 feet with a
front yard setback." She pointed out he never mentions nor is there any reference during the entire city
council meeting before the ordinance is passed that BD2 also has these two options, only BD4 has the
second use of multifamily clearly defined and referenced in writing in the code and there are different
standards if either commercial or multifamily only. BD2 is not included in that exception. If the intent
was that BD2 could also have both interpretations, why did Mr. Chave not say that? Because it never
could. Only BD4 is clarified in the code that there are different parameters, setbacks, design standards and
density with the multifamily only option versus commercial. She questioned why BD2 was not done at
the same time. There is nothing in writing to clearly define that there are two options in the BD2 just like
BD4. The staff -created multifamily only areas in the BD2 zone will now have the most intense density of
any multifamily building in any downtown zoning. The reason is they are attempting to use the
commercial zoning to go right up to the sidewalk with entirely residential.
Dr. Dotsch urged the council to think about these newly zoned 28 multifamily lots within the BD2
subarea now having the highest density anywhere downtown. To say this is somehow a transition area is
incorrect as it goes from the less intense density of BD1 to this new BD2 designation that is much denser
to then the adjacent surrounding RM-1.5 zoning which is less dense. She imagined this ring of 28 lots
being out of sorts with downtown density, use and bulk from Sunset Avenue, down 2" d South, down 3'
Avenue North, on 6t' Avenue and up Main Street and Dayton Street with the solution for the setback idea
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 44
5.1.c
to actually shrink the current 15 foot setback to only 5 feet from the RM-1.5 middle housing zone
adjacent to these lots. The neighbors might want to know that their homes next to this newly defined
zoning is putting these giant housing projects only 5 feet from their property line with decks and roof top
decks hanging over their homes. This is not a small change, but newly created zone with new zoning
requirements. Consideration also needs to be given to the increased density and massing on these 28
downtown lots and whether it even complies with the GMA or is compatible with current infrastructure
including public facilities and services needed to serve these developments. She urged the council to
make a fully informed decision tonight; if councilmembers were unable to say they were fully informed,
she urged them not to allow this public process to be stopped by removing a full and fair discission of
what this will truly look like. Just like the connector discussion sped up before the public really knew the
impact and many councilmembers helped stop that from happening. Once these decisions are allowed to
go ahead without clarity, it is hard to pull back, but it can be done.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said on April 5t' after the public hearing was closed, the city council took
unplanned and unannounced action which upset citizens and resulted in citizens speaking out from the
audience. New information including staff opinions about historical legislative intent were discussed after
the citizens' time to comment ended. During the public hearing, he asked city council how citizens were
supposed to know how to prepare public comments for the public hearing as neither the public notice nor
the agenda packet identified the findings the council was to consider adopting. Council did not answer his
question but added an additional unannounced element to the public hearing process that citizens were
also unaware of before the public hearing. He asked the council to address this conduct and take steps to
ensure it never happens again during the middle of a public hearing. Next, Mr. Reidy said state law states
a moratorium may be renewed for one or more six month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held
and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. He referred to the use of the word "renewal," which
is different than extension. Renewal allows for a new moratorium as opposed to the mere extension of
extra time to the pervious moratorium. A moratorium adopted without a work plan may be effective for
not longer than six months. A moratorium can be for one month, two months, four months, any length of
time not longer than six months. This fact was known to the Edmonds city council prior to council's vote
to pass Ordinance 4247 on February 15t''.
Mr. Reidy continued, as this fact was known upfront, it was critical that city council established a proper
time period for the original moratorium. Edmonds city council chose two months; this was allowed by the
not longer than six months authority provided by the statute. Once Edmonds city council made its legal
choice of two months, that time period could not be extended. Who would imagine Edmonds city council
thinking a moratorium could be extended rather than replacing the original moratorium with a new
moratorium. Making it worse, council failed to adopt findings of fact justifying the original moratorium
before it expired. Council also failed to justify continuing the original moratorium after the April 5t'
public hearing up to April 15t''. He urged the council to read the emergency declaration in Ordinance 4218
and questioned whether there was really an emergency if the council had the legal right to merely extend
the four months effective period of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 and do so without holding a subsequent
public hearing and making findings of fact. He questioned whether the council is being advised that they
can have their cake and eat it too. He urged the council to stop abusing the moratorium and interim zoning
process, citing Ordinance 4210 as another great example.
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, stating trees are legally the property of
those whose land they grown on and can only be given voluntarily to the City by owners for protection.
Edmonds has placed the public burden of tree canopy coverage on a small group of property owners by
seizing and then charging them for the rights to their trees and the land they shadow. She provided an
analogy; the City decides your neighbors would benefit from more vehicles. Although neighbors have
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 45
5.1.c
13. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH SCJ FOR HWY 99
GATEWAY -REVITALIZATION STAGE 2 PROJECT
14. PARK PLANNER AND CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION
APPROVAL
15. LEAD BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATOR JOB DESCRIPTION
16. RESOLUTION EXTENDING TEMPORARY EMERGENCY SICK LEAVE POLICY
17. PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
18. WWTP PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(D
At 8:38 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex as well as virtually. Elected officials present at the executive session were Mayor Nelson, and
Councilmembers K. Johnson, Tibbott, Buckshnis, Paine, Olson, L. Johnson, and Chen. Others present
were City Attorney Jeff Taraday. At 8:59 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would be
extended for 15 minutes to 9:14 p.m. At 9:14 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would
be extended for 10 minutes to 9:24 p.m. At 9:24 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session
would be extended for 10 minutes to 9:34 p.m. The executive session concluded at 9:34 p.m.
Mayor Nelson reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:34 p.m.
Mayor Nelson announced in conferring with Council President Olson, it was agreed to move the ARPA
Funding Status and Special Event Permits and Amendments to ECC Title 4 Licenses to a future meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DELETE ITEMS 3 AND 4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE BD2 MORATORIUM
(Previously Azenda Item 8.1)
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained any time a city council adopts a moratorium, the statute requires
findings be adopted to justify the moratorium. It is not a question of whether to adopt findings, but
whether the findings reflect the council's belief in terms of why the moratorium was adopted and whether
they clearly and fully articulate the bases for the moratorium. Item 8.1 in the packet contains a draft
resolution with several whereas clauses that represent his best effort to capture what he believes to be
many of the council's concerns, but he may not have captured all of them. Therefore, the council is free to
amend, add, or remove whereas clauses, but ultimately the resolution in some form should be adopted
tonight with possible amendments by the city council.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT STATES SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF,
WHEREAS SOME COUNCILMEMBERS FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO RECONSIDER
WHETHER THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP SHOULD BE EXTENDED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 46
5.1.c
Councilmember Tibbott recalled during council deliberations and looking at the map, councilmembers
realized the development of downtown has filled out and his question was what would it take to extend
the blue line to other areas of the City thereby extending the street front.
Council President Olson expressed her full support for this change, commenting a lot has changed in the
downtown over the years. One specific recent change is the Commons and that is one direction in which
the line should be extended because it has become almost a hub of the commercial district.
Councilmember Paine asked whether the timing mattered as part of the findings, whether it was during
the first part of the moratorium or mid -moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered the council has six months of
moratorium authority. Justifications on day 1 of the moratorium for initially enacting it may be different
than on day 60 or day 90 if the council decides to continue the moratorium. The justifications do not have
to be the ones that were anticipated on day 1; anything from day 1 to present would be acceptable to
include in the resolution.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She noted some councilmembers were
around during the BD discussions. The gist of the 2013 ordinances and the latest Ordinances 3955 and
3918 dealt with something that fulfilled the economic development plan and strategic goals, to create
synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, implementing a retail core. Adding this
will help; there is already a very dense downtown and multifamily housing is needed throughout the City.
She referred to the Edmonds City Council approved minutes of November 4, 2013 where Stephen Clifton
talked about public safety with the office space and the central gathering place coming into the Commons.
The vision was for a retail core in the downtown area.
Councilmember Chen expressed support for extending the blue line, however, he wanted to see a vibrant
downtown with mixed use. The BD2 zone was intended to be mixed use so he would like to see that type
of development where commercial and residential are mixed for that purpose.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not support the motion. This is a new concern that never came up
with the other two projects in a similar area of the BD2 zone. By extending it, commercial only would be
allowed, but there would be no requirement for mixed use or multifamily. The City limits where
multifamily is allowed and this is one more attempt to further limit it. These concerns were not expressed
before and are an example of the way the community has repeatedly reacted to multifamily development.
Councilmember Paine said she was troubled by this last minute addition. It is trying to create a solution
that is very short sighted before there is additional information from an economic and residential needs
assessment of the community. It is clearly no longer 2013 and she does not support this addition to the
whereas clauses as the council is not operating with good information.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
City Clerk Scott Passey advised that was Resolution 1490.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 47
5.1.c
3. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE
BD2 ZONE (previously Item 8.2)
Senior Planner Mike Clugston provided an update on the status of the design standards for multifamily
only buildings in BD2. Since the April 5' meeting where there were comments on several of the design
standards, staff took the standards to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who were generally in favor
of the proposed language with a couple of tweaks. Staff s recommend is to approve the interim design
standards in Exhibit 2 via the ordinance in Exhibit 3. With regard to materials, which was one of the
design standards, no change was recommended; the ADB and the public seemed to like the concept of
materials used on these types of buildings. Similarly, for the street side amenity space, the concept that
provides a setback was well received and no changes are proposed.
Mr. Clugston continued, there were no concerns with the private amenity space generally, but there was
some concern with roof top decks. As a result a small change was proposed to the roof top deck areas as
outlined in the packet. Previously a roof top deck would be allowed to fulfill the amenity space
requirement; that was changed to say it could not be used to fulfill the amenity space requirement, but
could be provided. Another question raised was whether roof top decks should be allowed to the edge of
the roof; the building code allows railings at the edge. There was some concern from the council, public
and the ADB who felt some setback of the railing would be useful for safety and proposed a 5-foot
setback as a starting point. He recalled a setback for the railing was also suggested by a member of the
public at the April 5' meeting.
Mr. Clugston continued, another question was raised about whether the roof top deck should be counted
toward the private amenity space requirement. There was some concern that a developer would put all the
50% amenity space on the roof, thereby depriving some individual residences of balconies, decks and
patios. The revised language changes the ability to use the roof top deck to meet the amenity space
requirement; a roof top deck is still allowed, but all the private amenity space has to be provided with
individual units or at the ground level meeting the existing standards in the proposed language. He
summarized with the feedback from council, the ADB and the public, the design standards are generally
pretty good and would result in improved projects in multifamily only buildings in BD2.
Council President Olson said she not sure she was against the idea of a roof top deck but was not sure she
was ready to say they absolutely should be allowed. Her concern was with building heights, a cultural
value in Edmonds. When building heights were increased 5 feet at one point, the idea wasn't to allow
increased levels of living units, but to allow for some roof modulation or slope so the roofs were not all
flat because that is not a great design in the Pacific Northwest. Things can be placed on a roof top deck,
even if they aren't permanent, such as umbrellas and furniture. If part of the desire to keep building
heights at a certain level is to be respectful of views due to the slope throughout the lower level of
Edmonds, she had an issue with roof top decks in the context of the community value of avoiding
increasing building heights due the impact on views. She summarized she was uncertain she was ready to
allow roof top decks as an amenity.
Mr. Clugston responded a number of exceptions to the height are allowed such as an architectural feature
that can cover 5% of the roof area on a BD building, elevator penthouses, solar panels, etc. He
summarized the height limit such as 30 feet is not an absolute drop dead maximum as things can project
above it. Using that information, staff determined roof top decks fit with that concept particularly if the
railings are transparent and there are no permanent structures on the roof top.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 48
5.1.c
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin said staff is not wed to the concept of roof top decks
as part of the interim design standards. The most recent revision excludes roof top decks from the
required private amenity space and they are happy to exclude roof top deck from the interim design
standards. The multifamily design standards are a 2022 work plan item which will provide more time to
delve into it. The focus of the interim design standards is setback, articulation, and more green space on
multifamily buildings.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure if she was in favor of roof top decks; Edmonds is not
Seattle and Seattle has a lot of them. She might be interested if they were recessed further than five feet.
She recalled complaints the City received about the visibility of a tent on a business's roof for a long
period of time due the slope. She supported having more research done because Edmonds is unique and
she anticipated roof top patios could get out of hand. There are rooftop patios in many large cities and she
was not sure Edmonds was large enough for that yet.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE REVISED INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXHIBIT 2 AND ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 3.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the third time the council has worked on this and the issues
that were raised last week have been addressed. Staff came forward with what the council requested and
further amendments can be made.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY REMOVING THE ROOF TOP PORTION AS IT IS
WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the product as amended, noting there is an opportunity for
greater review by the public and another public process. This is a good interim proposal and it was her
understanding the process would take about nine months which would allow for a good public process.
A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO AMEND TO
CHANGE THE CURRENT SECTION D OF 22.43.080 TO E AND ADD A NEW SECTION D
THAT READS, SOME ROOF MODULATION IS REQUIRED WITH PREFERENCE FOR STEP
DOWNS THAT FOLLOW THE SLOPE WHEN SLOPE EXISTS.
Council President Olson said that was one of the features she notices and likes when she is downtown and
prefers to see. The history of allowing an additional 5 feet in height was to allow slope on roofs or
modulation so buildings were not square boxes and were a more attractive design. She recognized these
were interim design standards, but some projects will vest under these interim design standards.
Councilmember Paine asked how much slope modulation there was in other parts of Edmonds. She was
concerned this would be disparate if it was only required in one of the business districts, noting it was not
required for single family residences. She asked if any other zoning districts in the City required
modulation on the slope.
Council President Olson offered a point of clarification, that was not the amendment. Her motion was
some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists,
it would not be a mandate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 49
5.1.c
Councilmember Paine said she was still curious about the answer to her question, whether this existed in
any other zones. Mr. Clugston answered in the RM zones the base height maximum was 25 feet and an
additional 5 feet was allowed with a roof pitch of 4:12 or greater. That was also permitted in BC zones.
Councilmember Chen asked if there were any buildings in the City that had roof top amenities. Mr.
Clugston answered roof top decks were allowed in other zones but the only one he was aware of was the
new building at Westgate. Councilmember Chen said that could be a wonderful feature with enough
setback. He supported respecting people's privacy by having enough distance from the edge of building
so that people were looking at the water and mountain views and not into other people's windows.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND WITH REGARD TO GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTS, TO EXTEND THE STREET
FRONT TO THE ABUTTING CORNERS AROUND THE INTERSECTION TO INCLUDE
STREET FRONTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXTEND WHERE
THERE IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
THERE ARE THREE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IT IS EXTENDED TO ALL FOUR
CORNERS AND FOUR PLACES WHERE IT IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE MAIN AND 6TH, IT
STOPS RIGHT AT 6TH AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER CORNERS THAT DO NOT HAVE
STREET FRONT AND THREE OTHER PLACES THAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was to have that brought back or have an ordinance drafted tonight that
would accomplish that. Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to asking Mr. Taraday to bring and
ordinance back to council for review. Mr. Taraday said he would need to work with planning staff on that;
that type of an amendment would be difficult to adopt tonight. If the intent is to have that in place before
lifting the moratorium, the moratorium would need to be extended. The complexity involved with a map
amendment of that nature would be difficult to do at 10:15 p.m. without long extensions of the meeting. If
the council extended the moratorium for a month, it would give him time work with the planning division
to bring back an ordinance that would accomplish that. If that was the case, there would need to be other
amendments made to the ordinance currently before the council such removing language in Section 2 that
lifts the moratorium.
Council President Olson asked if the council was otherwise satisfied with the design standards, could the
section about the moratorium be struck while staff is figuring out the designated street front. Mr. Taraday
answered the council has options, 1) adopt the design standards as just amended and lift the moratorium,
or 2) adopt the design standards as just amended and keep the moratorium in place. Adopting the design
standards and keeping the moratorium in place will require two separate ordinances. As he was not
certain how the discussion/vote would go, as a precaution, he prepared an ordinance to extend the
moratorium for a month so it was ready if the council needed it. If council wants to adopt the design
standards as amended and keep moratorium in place, a motion would need to be made to approve the
version of the ordinance that he sent the council by email this afternoon that contains immediate effect
language, not the packet version of the ordinance. Section 2 of that ordinance which repeals the
moratorium would need to be deleted. He summarized if the council likes the design standards as
amended and does not want to repeal the moratorium, that could be accomplished by deleting Section 2 of
the ordinance he sent council this afternoon.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 50
5.1.c
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
ACCEPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS AMENDED TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE
REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE SENT THIS AFTERNOON BY EMAIL WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF DELETING SECTION 2 THAT LIFTS THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed there was an motion on the floor to approve the ordinance in the
packet. Mr. Taraday agreed the ordinance was moved originally and assumed the version of the ordinance
was the one he sent this afternoon. Councilmember L. Johnson said her motion was to approve the
ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday clarified the packet version will not take effect prior to the
expiration of the moratorium. A version of the ordinance needs to be adopted which takes effect
immediately which is why he sent out a revised version this afternoon. The revised version does not
change any of the substance of the design standards, it is contains a declaration of emergency and has an
immediate effect clause. He asked whether the maker of the motion was okay substituting that version for
the version in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was unable to give that at this point
without reading what was emailed.
Mayor Nelson observed there was already a motion on the floor and this is another motion. He suggested
addressing the main motion.
Council President Olson began to make an amendment, to have Section 2 deleted that lifts the
moratorium. She asked if the emergency clause could be removed if the moratorium was not lifted. Mr.
Taraday said if the council wanted to prevent developments vesting to the preexisting standards, the
ordinance needs to take effect immediately. The packet version does not take effect immediately; the
council would need to adopt the version he sent this afternoon in order for it to take effect immediately.
He offered to highlight the change to the ordinance in the packet.
Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the version Mr. Taraday sent this afternoon does not lift the
moratorium, it allows the design standards to take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday answered it does both;
the council probably will want the design standards to take immediate effect either way unless a separate
ordinance is adopted that extends the moratorium. If a separate ordinance is adopted to extend the
moratorium, then the design standards ordinance does not need to be an emergency.
The motion was clarified as follows:
Councilmember L. Johnson was open to changing the motion to include what was emailed to the
council now that she had had a chance to look at it, provided that that lifts the moratorium. The
seconder, Councilmember Paine agreed as long as it lifted the moratorium.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to see all of this in writing and give citizens an
opportunity to participate. She was concerned that at 10:25 p.m., the council was attempting to approve
something that was sent this afternoon and then making amendments to it. She preferred to have the
ordinance in the packet. She did not support the motion but wanted to have the moratorium extended so
this could be fixed and everyone could see it in writing in the packet. She asked what needed to be done
to make that happen. Mr. Taraday said the council would want to adopt the other ordinance he emailed
this evening, not the afternoon one, that extends the moratorium for a month.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the council would have to wait to do that until the motion the floor
was addressed. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion as she
believed there needed to be a public process, the public had not read the ordinance and she had only read
it quickly.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 51
5.1.c
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ONE MONTH.
Council President Olson observed there was an ordinance that does that. She offered to read the
ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking where this was on the agenda. Council
President Olson answered this was one of the things the council can do. Councilmember L. Johnson said
the council tabled this item.
Mr. Taraday explained the motion to adopt the ordinance that adopts the interim design standards was
tabled. If the council wants to take alternative action regarding the moratorium, it can do so, it can amend
agenda, etc. A majority of the council can do whatever it wants during a regular meeting. Councilmember
L. Johnson observed it was not on the existing agenda.
Council President Olson asked if it was the council's desire to take vote to add this to the agenda or could
it be done via a head nod. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council did not take action via head
nods.
Council President Olson restated her motion:
TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND EXTEND THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember Paine said adding this to the agenda at 10:26 p.m. was a rather thin nail to hang the
transparency hat on.
Councilmember Chen said the council needs more time and cannot vote on something that was sent in the
afternoon. He did not support the motion.
Council President Olson offered to withdraw the motion and plan a special meeting on Thursday.
Councilmember Chen said that would be more appropriate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she like to take this vote tonight and did not want to have a special
meeting on Thursday for this one item. It is part and parcel of what the council has discussed tonight
related to adopting a resolution to adopt the findings in support of the BD2 moratorium. The motion
would be to extend moratorium and she favored taking that action tonight.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON
AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE
MORATORIUM OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2
ZONE LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY
ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE 4253.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 52
5.1.c
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was following through on what Councilmember K. Johnson said.
There is a moratorium in place, this is the formal action to extend it for one month. If the council does not
take this action, the moratorium will expire on Thursday and she did not think the city attorney and staff
would have the necessary materials completed in time for a continued meeting on Thursday. She
preferred to either approve extending the moratorium and if not, it will end on April 21 and the interim
building standards will take effect. This will give time to do what needs to be done in terms of getting
packet materials done and extending the moratorium.
Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the motion. She found it interesting that the council just
tabled something based on being unable to review something that was received at 5:00 p.m., yet would
vote on a document that was received during the council meeting which she has not had an opportunity to
review.
Councilmember Paine preferred to come back on Thursday. There is a chance to have enough public
process to get through the tail end of the moratorium. Moratoriums are damaging to the City's reputation
and progress on building, things that are normally allowed. She felt it was shortsighted and that the
council would not get that much more information about what the business practices need to look like
within a month as that is a much bigger study.
Councilmember Chen agreed that the council needs to come back on Thursday. It is late at night and all of
a sudden the council wants to pass a motion to extend the moratorium. He was not comfortable
supporting that.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday explained a 4-3 vote adopts the ordinance, but does not take immediate effect with a 4-3 vote
and will take effective 5 days after passage and publication. If the council does not meet on Thursday to
take some other action, the moratorium will end at the close of business on Thursday and on Friday a
developer theoretically could vest an application pursuant to the prior development standards. If the
ordinance takes effect five business day after publication, next Wednesday, that leaves four business days,
Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a developer to vest an application. The council could take
other action on Thursday that would take immediate effect, but five votes are required for an ordinance to
take immediate effect.
Council President Olson began to make a motion to add back Items 3 and 4 that were deleted so they
could be discussed at the special meeting on Thursday, and then concluded a motion was not necessary.
4. ARPA FUNDING STATUS (Previously Item 8.3)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES
(Previously Item 8.4)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 22
Packet Pg. 53
5.1.d
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
APPROVED MINUTES
April 21, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Vivian Olson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director
Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present participating remotely, with the
exception of Councilmember L. Johnson.
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 1
Packet Pg. 54
5.1.d
Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, referred to the email she sent to council that asked they use their minds eye to
visualize not only what each development will look like as part of a whole in the landscape, but also how
it will impact the neighborhood, not just at the front and side but the back of the building as well. Earlier
today as she was driving down Main Street, the spectacular view always takes her breath away. The current
businesses on either side at 600, 605 and 611 Main do not interfere with the ambiance, allow enjoyment of
the wonderful view and don't distract from it which is why residents live here and tourist come to experience
it. She suggested imagining how it would look with the proposed apartments dwarfing the heritage cottage
at 601 Main and obliterating the 1895 cottage at 605 Main, two of the last vestiges of Edmonds' heritage
and a blight on the landscape forever, particularly if the same was built at 600 Main. The square block
between 6' and 7' and Main & Bell is already very high density. Residents pay a premium to live there
and spend their money in Edmonds. Some, definitely not all developers, are only in it to maximize their
profits and their money goes into the bank; they don't care about the impact on the residents or on the City.
Ms. Fireman applauded the council for their wish to add addendums to expand the limits of the designated
street front map because businesses are needed, to extend the moratorium for two months for further study,
and to eliminate roof top decks, add a provision to follow the slope of the lot against the alley and lot line
to help reduce the scale of the building and alleviate the pervasiveness of the 40-foot tall straight flat wall
against the alley lot line and allow the adjacent residents to reclaim a little of the lost visual of their
surroundings and the light that will be taken away. She urged the council not to allow roof top decks,
commenting the development was already oversized and residents want to avoid being kept awake at night.
In addition, there is a wind tunnel that comes up the alley and she could envision things flying off the deck.
She would like to see the development reduced in height and scale to fit in with the historic downtown and
to somehow save the 1895 cottage; it has been a viable business for years and possibly can be moved. She
asked the council to give consideration to those who live in the area and are impacted by the development
as well as those who will be affected by other imminent development in BD2 spot zones. She recognized
there was a lot of divisiveness around these issues, but hoped the council could come together to resolve
them.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented this has been quite a charade. He recognized councilmembers had a
lot of work to do and had to review a lot of materials in the agenda packet. He wondered if any
councilmembers looked at Ordinance 3955 regarding BD1 ground floor street front and compared it to the
code. He questioned why the code was not updated when Ordinance 3955 was passed. He questioned who
was in charge at the City, who was checking this stuff, whether it was the attorney, the council president,
the city clerk or the mayor. Anyone with a 6' grade education looking at the building standards for the BD1
zone knows it is business and mixed use commercial. Nowhere has Kernen Lien shown the council where
City staff was told that outside the designated street front there could be an entirely multifamily project.
The dimensional requirements in the zoning code clearly state 45 feet in the designated street front is
required to be commercial. The exception in 7 under BD 1 ground floor street front does not apply to these
buildings. There could be doctors or dentists in that 45 feet but there can't be in the BD or the designated
street front. Every house in Edmonds has a designated street front. He questioned whether it was defined
in the code and said the lie is related to ceiling height and allowed uses in those zones. What the council is
trying to do is absolutely illegal and is appealable to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, said the foundation to tonight's discussion hinges on whether to keep a small
portion of the required development in the BD2 downtown mixed commercial zone as commercial. It needs
to be accurately stated that multifamily is an allowed use in this zone, even encouraged as mixed use in the
comprehensive plan along with a minimum square footage on the ground floor for businesses and jobs that
support and compliment the BD 1 commercial only zone. The 2020 validation study of the buildable lands
study comparing development predictions with actual development, shows Edmonds exceeded the total
predicted housing units by 74%. It also shows the average buildable density in Edmond exceeded predicted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 55
5.1.d
targets by 64%. That is only through 2019, there is time to get this right. She asked how do the community
wanted the future vision of Edmonds to play out, whether it was a greater emphasis on Edmonds just
expanding housing only which the study clearly shows exceeded county targets, losing small businesses
and commercial balance along with local job opportunity growth to coordinate with housing expansion.
This will only push residents to travel farther for goods and services including driving further to their jobs
because local business options have been removed for even more housing only buildings. A 15-minute City
discussion was presented by the development services director as a possible goal for Edmonds, but if the
vital supporting role that BD2 service businesses provide to the town is removed, it will become a 45-90
minute town in the end.
Dr. Dotsch continued, support service businesses are vital to a thriving community and are excluded from
the BD 1 ground floor designated street front zone. Chapter 16.43 which defines all the BD zones contains
a footnote that states services, by appointment uses not providing open door retail, dining, entertainment
functions as a primary component of the business, are not allowed within BD 1 ground floor street front first
45 feet. Open door businesses, e.g. real estate offices, banks with tellers and no drive throughs, nail and
hair salons are allowed. Now the council is prioritizing eliminating the 13132 language that allows for these
other uses, these smaller service business to thrive and compliment the mix of jobs and uses in the entire
downtown district. Less options for small, appointment -only business will force residents to travel further
for these vital services and the staff and clients they bring that frequent the retail shops, restaurants, banks
in the core daily. This 13132 use zoning designed on the shoulders of the small downtown district should be
preserved for its core economic health, livability and job creation. She requested the council require that
businesses and jobs remain in this small BD2 zone. There is already more multifamily square footage
allowed in this zone than business, once it is 100% gone, there is no room in the small downtown core to
bring it back. She requested the council renew the moratorium and design standards for six months to get
this right as there is no rush.
6. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
IN THE BD2 ZONE
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained two days ago the council adopted an ordinance to extend the
moratorium through May 19'. However, because that ordinance passed on a 4-3 vote, it will not take effect
until sometime next week. The moratorium ends today, so theoretically starting tomorrow building permit
applications could be submitted that would vest to the existing design standards, zoning, etc. To the extend
the council wants to prevent that from happening, the council has an opportunity at this meeting to adopt
the ordinance in the packet that would, with at least five votes, take immediate effect and would also extend
the moratorium until June 2nd. That date was chosen after consulting with the development services director
to determine the amount of time that likely would be needed for the designated street front issue to be
returned to the council for further consideration.
Mr. Taraday continued, the idea is the council could extend the moratorium tonight through June 2nd and
then take up the designated street front issue on May 17th and perhaps the following meeting, and still have
time to adopt an ordinance before the moratorium expires on June 2n1. Of course, as long as the moratorium
is within the six month authority, the council has some discretion to extend it further, but staff does not
believe that it will take longer than June 2' to complete work on the designated street front. If it appears
on May 17' that more time is necessary, the council could extend the moratorium again, but his
understanding after consulting with the development services director is that it should come to council on
May 17d`.
Mr. Taraday identified minor amendments that he suggested be made to the packet version. He referenced
the draft extension moratorium ordinance on page 4, pointing out the title references both Ordinance 4253
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 56
5.1.d
and 4254 (Ordinance 4254 was adopted on Tuesday). As Section 1 does not reference Ordinance 4254, he
suggested a minor edit to Section 1 that would read, "...extended by Ordinances 4253 and 4254 ..." The
second edit would add a whereas clause before the last whereas clause that reads, "Whereas Ordinance
4254 extended the moratorium throwh May 19`h, 2022 but did not pass with sufficient margin to take
immediate effect; and. He apologized for the edits, but said with the moratorium expiring, they are
necessary.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING
THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR
BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED
BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCES 4253 AND 4254.
Council President Olson said she was excited for the opportunity to pass this ordinance with a super
majority and have it take effective immediately so there will be better design standards in place.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ATTORNEY, ADDING ORDINANCE
4254 IN SECTION 1 AND THE ADDITIONAL WHEREAS CLAUSE.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Taraday to send councilmembers the language he read for the
additional whereas. Mr. Taraday shared his screen so councilmembers were able to read it and repeated the
amendments, revise Section 1 to read, "...extended by Ordinances 4253 and 4254 ..." and add a whereas
clause before the last whereas clause that reads, "Whereas Ordinance 4254 extended the moratorium
through May 19`h, 2022 but did not pass with sufficient margin to take immediate effect; and.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she has either an amendment or a clarification. She referred to the 15t'
whereas clause (WHEREAS, the history suggests that what was seen in 2011 as the logical limits of the
downtown commercial core may no longer fit the circumstances of 2022 due to the fact that certain blocks
are showing vibrant commercial activity right up to the edges of the designed street front map; and) and
questioned why 2011 was used when the original Ordinance 3628 regarding BD zones was adopted in 2007.
Mr. Taraday said it was most recently amended in 2011. Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien said 2011
is the ordinance that adopted the current extent of the designated street front. Councilmember Buckshnis
relayed her understanding it was updating Ordinance 3628. Mr. Lien agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis said in reading this, it is kind of judgmental and she preferred using logical
limits, fit the circumstances, etc. She questioned if that whereas clause was even needed. Mr. Taraday
pointed out a typo in that whereas clause; it should be "designated," instead of "designed." In his opinion
the whereas clause is helpful because it explains why the extension of the moratorium to June 2nd is
necessary; it is necessary because the council wants to reevaluate the designated street front map. That is
essentially the primary reason for the proposed extension. He felt it was a helpful whereas clause, but
recognized the council was free to amend.
Councilmember Buckshnis said now that Mr. Taraday had explained it, she was fine with it. She suggested
a whereas clause saying the definition of the 13132 is mixed residential. She has yet to see where council has
deliberated on the two options which were given to the council at the time of the B134 zones and wanted to
have language that states, "Whereas B132 always been recognized by council as mixed residential." Mr.
Taraday answered the whereas clauses explain in essence the reasons for what the council is doing today,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 57
5.1.d
but do not prevent the council from taking action in future. He realized that some people may still disagree
with the analysis provided regarding the BD zone. That whereas clause does not prevent the council from
stating in the future that there is not going to be residential only structures anywhere in the BD2 zone. There
are several ways to accomplish that such as drastically increasing the designated street front map, a map
amendment, text amendment, etc. That whereas clause does not prevent the council in the future from doing
what the council wants to do with residential structures.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it was Ordinance 3918 that describes the subdistricts and BD2 is downtown
mixed commercial. She would like to have a whereas in Ordinance in 3918 stating the BD2 zone is defined
as downtown mixed commercial.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS/COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, TO ADD A
WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT ORDINANCE 3918 DEFINES BD2 AS DOWNTOWN MIXED
COMMERCIAL.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented some councilmembers lived through this; she recalled former
Councilmember Petso saying land use is permanent, you better be very careful with what you do. She has
read a lot of materials, she appreciated the work done by staff and Mr. Taraday, but in her opinion Ordinance
3918 was left out of the agenda memo and she felt it was a very important ordinance. The new moratorium
addresses street fronts and defines building types. Ordinance 3918 defines BD2 as downtown mixed
commercial. She had not seen any materials related to transition zones, etc. This further acknowledges that
there are a number of important ordinance related to the BD topic.
Councilmember Paine said the whereas that refers to 2011 is the reason for extending the moratorium from
May 19th to June 2"d. She did not believe this new whereas clause adds additional clarity or a compelling
story which is the reason for having clear whereas clauses.
Council President Olson said the comment by Councilmember Paine was a fair point. She was the one that
noticed Ordinance 4254 was not referenced in the whereas clause and even though it didn't change
anything, it did document the history and she felt the same about adding language regarding Ordinance
3918. It does not have an impact because the council can choose what they think is appropriate for the BD2
zone, but it documents the history and therefor it adds value.
Councilmember Chen valued the history and the additional understanding via adding Ordinance 3918 to
the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Taraday commented it is true that Ordinance 3918 was one of the ordinance that amended the BD
zoning code, but the language about downtown mixed commercial has been in code since 2008; it was not
amended by Ordinance 3918. It was not staff s goal in drafting the memo regarding the history to identify
every ordinance that has amended any aspect of the BD zone. Staff s focus was on the ordinances they felt
had some relevance to the designated street front and the BD2 uses which is why Ordinance 3918 is not
referenced. He did not think there was any harm in referencing it, but it does not add much to explain why
the council was doing this. Ordinance 3918 was primary about building height and things like that, not
about uses or the designated street front. The red lines in the ordinance show where it was amended.
Councilmember Buckshnis read from Ordinance 3918, Whereas the following work sessions with the
members of the ADB and Planning Board took place July 9, 2013, February 13 and February 27, 2013. She
recalled it very clearly and she was sure Councilmember K. Johnson did as well and likely Councilmember
Tibbott. It defines the subdistricts, whereas the memo goes into the reasoning behind the street fronts; in
her opinion reference to Ordinance 3918 added a valuable piece of history. Ordinance 3918 was a pivotal
year when the council was looking at the BD zones; some may not feel it adds value but she thought it did.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 5
Packet Pg. 58
5.1.d
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2
ZONE
Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to review the language in the packet.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the first step is to un-table this item so the council can discuss it.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
TO UN -TABLE THIS DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
MULTIFAMILY ONLY BUILDING IN THE BD2 ZONE.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he included a recommendation in the agenda that the council not un-table
the motion as it will be a much easier process to move the ordinance in packet. Otherwise a number of
amendments would need to be made to the ordinance that the council tabled. If the council prefers to start
where they left off on Tuesday, that is certain the council's prerogative.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked for further clarification, advising she did not see the recommendation to
not un-table the item and she did not understand how the council could discuss it without un-tabling it. Mr.
Taraday relayed the recommendation to move the ordinance in the packet. Tuesday's motion was to move
the ordinance in that packet. They are not the same ordinances and the council's deliberation would be
much more straightforward if the council began by moving the ordinance in the packet.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that by not removing the item from the table, it would
be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining there is no obligation to ever remove something from
the table. His intent was to provide the most streamlined process; the ordinance in tonight's packet will be
the best starting point for council's deliberation and starting anywhere else will make deliberations more
complex. He recommended leaving Tuesday's ordinance on the table and starting deliberations with the
ordinance in tonight's packet.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2
ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247
AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4253.
Councilmember Tibbott said staff did a good job of capturing the essence of Tuesday's conversation and
he agreed with the language used to describe the design standards. He will support ordinance.
Councilmember Paine said she will support this ordinance and hoped it would be sufficient for as long as
it was needed. She hoped the feasibility study regarding the needs of either commercial businesses or
residential in this part of town would be completed prior to the moratorium's expiration on June 2nd. She
will support the interim ordinance, expressing her preference to have moratorium lifted well before June
2nd
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 6
Packet Pg. 59
5.1.d
Councilmember Chen asked for clarification on design standard D, some roof modulation is required with
preference for step-down that follows the slope when slope exists. He asked if that affected the building
height. Mr. Clugston answered this was offered as an amendment on Tuesday. It does not affect the
maximum height in the zone which is still 30 feet for the BD2 zone, but requires some roof modulation and
step-down is one of the option.
Councilmember Chen asked if the roof modulation referred to the same building or separate buildings. Mr.
Clugston answered it would refer to two separate buildings, As the slope steps down, there would be roof
modulation between the buildings and the intent is that each building would have some roof modulation.
That could be achieved via a step-down or other ways. Councilmember Chen summarized the intent is for
the view from the higher building to not be blocked by the building lower on the slope. Mr. Clugston said
he did not know if that was the intent of adding this standard. If there is a slope, the buildings would step
down the slope and there would be opportunity to modulate the roof. Councilmember Chen expressed
support for the ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Exhibit A, Chapter 22.43.080, was adopted as part of this ordinance.
Mr. Taraday answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
ADD TO THE END OF SECTION A, INTENT, "AND COMPLY TO HUMAN SCALE BY
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODULATION."
Councilmember Buckshnis said a builder with over 20 years' experience indicated using "compatible within
the downtown area" could result in a big block building and suggested adding human scale. The intent of
the amendment is to take vertical and horizontal issues into account. She recall Councilmember Tibbott
asking about that relative to the post office building.
Councilmember Paine asked if an addition to the intent helped describe what was required or was that
accomplished via the specifics regarding materials, private amenity space, street site amenities, roof
modulation, landscaping, etc. Human scale is subjective depending on context. Adding human scale is a
broader discussion that should be reviewed by the planning board and ADB to ensure they are comfortable
with adopting that because they would need to review against it. Development Services Director Susan
McLaughlin answered this section will be a subsection of the broader design standards. The intent and
purpose of those design standards already articulate human scale, keeping with the historic nature of
downtown, repeating historic patterns, vertical and horizontal modulation, etc. so it would be redundant.
Having an intention statement identifies the outcome once all the design standards are rolled up.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT MOTION WITH THE
AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND SO THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE READS, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-
ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS
THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. , AND LIFT-ING—THE
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND ITEM 2 RELATED TO BALCONIES, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE FIRST
SENTENCE, "DECKS ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE
SECOND FLOOR ONLY."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 60
5.1.d
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to understand that decks encroach on the vibrancy
of the City because it is part of the common space. Therefore, she wanted to ensure that decks that encroach
into the setback were limited to the second floor and up.
Councilmember Paine assumed all decks would on the second or third floor and she did not understand
what this amendment would change. Most likely decks would encroach, but not beyond 5 feet.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, pointing out on the post office building part of it is
commercial and she considered the patios to be decks. Mr. Clugston explained the intent of the standard
was balconies are on the second and third floors of buildings and can project out or be built into the building;
decks and patios are at the ground level which is why two different standard distances were proposed. On
the ground level, they can project into the 15 foot setback by 10 feet and balconies on the second and third
floors can project a maximum of 5 feet.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. ADJOURN
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 21, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 61
5.1.e
several issues, some it can control and others likely not, including the environment, increased
transportation requirements and emergency management. This process will take time and several
stakeholders are effected including governments like the City and Port, the Washington State Department
of Transportation, Ferries as well as private entities and each have various requirements and objectives
including determining the waterfront of the future. The waterfront is one of the City's gems, visited by
thousands each year. How a person enjoys the waterfront is very personal; the Edmonds waterfront he
enjoyed as a kid is very different from today's waterfront and collectively the stakeholders need to
determine what they want it to be in the future. Each of the waterfront stakeholders plays a significant
role and realistic solutions need to be identified for some of the challenges. The Port of Edmonds
contributes greatly to the waterfront, as an environmental steward, a place for citizens and guests to enjoy,
and the economic impact it brings to the City as one of the most significant tax contributors. The Port is
committed to working with the City and other stakeholders in this process, expecting a cooperative and
collaborative effort that addresses the best interest of all.
Marlin Phelps said if there was someone in the community who grew up here, went to college, came
back and did something of great substance to which a younger generation wants to emulate her,
something very good has been done, a legacy. He commented Edmonds is a fine city with a fine city
council. He relayed in 2015, Judge Linda Coburn gave an order to have a private inspector work for him,
unsolicited, which he thought was odd but he was grateful. The inspector ran a PUD list of where his wife
of 10 years had lived and none of it was close to what he had known to be true. He goggled her, looked at
several background check websites, found his name and her kids' names, but her employer is a law firm
Honigman, Miller, Quartz and Cohn. He was being persecuted and had good story, so he called 50 law
firms, and the only one that returned his call was Honigman, Miller Quartz, Cohn so he knew there was a
connection. U.S. Senator Carl Levin then abruptly retired, became the managing lawyer of that law firm.
Meanwhile, he received a letter from Maria Cantwell offering her help. Senator Levin was Maria
Cantwell's mentor in the senate. He referred to the murder of Tom Wells, the path of righteousness, and
finding out who killed him, something that is well within the City's rights and is why municipal courts
were invented.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, commented she had little time to prepare because the BD2 agenda item was
recently changed and Friday's packet did not contain some of the information being presented today. She
pointed out BD2 has the label downtown mixed use commercial, a separate district from all the other BD
zones because it is complimentary to the BD zone, especially BD ground floor street front which only
allows businesses with open door policies, not by -appointment businesses unless they are grandfathered
in. BD2 allows offices such as accountants, lawyers, doctors, dentists, medical, acupuncture, counseling,
tutoring, etc., businesses that provide services not permitted in BD 1 and providing a symbiotic
relationship. BD4 is labeled downtown mixed residential which the proposal is trying to turn BD2 into.
She questioned why BD2 was called mixed use commercial when the zones were created instead of
saying it is all BD4, downtown mixed use residential. She expressed concern with doing this hurriedly
and having outside people evaluate what is best for Edmonds. Multifamily is being constructed
throughout Edmonds; the zones considered did not include all the multifamily downtown such as up on
the hill, on 3', 2' or 5'. She referred to the book, Building a Vibrant Community, and a statement in the
book about not rushing things and not thinking that what is good for one city is good for another. She
questioned whether the goal was to build a vibrant city for Edmonds, that considers walkability, use of
services, and that leads to using retail and commercial.
Jack Malek, Shoreline, a Windermere relator, spoke regarding BD2 Designated Street Front. He has a
listing for the Soundview Plaza on 2" d & James; the suggested extension is in front of 2" d & James which
he opposes. The market study favors residential; allowing mixed use and a more robust ability to adapt to
different economies is a smarter choice. He suggested a fully residential building could be allowed with
the option to use the ground level for commercial in the future to allow for fluctuating market conditions.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 62
5.1.e
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, explaining Edmonds has taken the rights
and worth of their trees, making the building and safety of their homes infeasible with regulatory and
monetary takings. The intent seems to be to decrease the value of vacant property so the City can acquire
it at lower prices for their tree agenda. Edmonds has 35% tree canopy but only 2% buildable vacant land
in single family zones. She questioned whether it was necessary to punish those needing and providing
housing. In 2017, she and her family found a beautiful, sloped 1.25 acre property with trees to build
homes for themselves and her then 82-year old parents. They hired a geotech whose reports verified there
was no critical area, and water retention and soil integrity on the sloped property was so strong, he
certified no risk of slides in the next 100-200 years. The report was provided to Edmonds planning who
assured them there was no obstacle to dividing the property and they purchased it. After purchasing, Mike
Clugston advised dividing would be difficult with the small wet corner that is a landslide risk area; he did
not reveal this before. With his encouragement, they gave the corner to the neighbor, a process that took
two years, and were then ready to apply for division in November 2020, the week the Edmonds city
council halted applications to write tree codes requiring exorbitant tree fees and more work from their
engineers and arborists. On June 22, 2021, Edmonds council voted to take ownership of every tree on all
vacant, private properties, violating the constitution's takings clause. Before division is permitted for
single family homes, payment of $3,000412,000 for each tree needing removal must be made to the City.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, they have applied for division retaining 50% of the trees, forfeiting safety and
mountain and sound views. The City's response letter states all trees retained on private property become
the City's protected trees involuntarily and indefinitely. When the property is sold, no trees rights remain
for homeowners. In the event a tree is damaged, arborist appraisals are still required for every tree, at a
costs of $200-$300 each along with a list of replacement trees and planting locations or payment of an
additional $2500 for each tree in addition to the worth of each removed. An attached drawing showed
about 40% of their property is now classified as untouchable critical area, shocking their geotech. Trees in
this area would not count toward the 30% open space or tree retention. She relayed Kernen Lien's
explanation that if 50% of trees are retained, trees in critical area count toward retained trees. If less than
50% are retained, trees in the critical area do not count and additional trees must be retained, plus fees of
over $107,000. She urged councilmembers to let them build their homes without the unconstitutional
[inaudible] only upon vacant land owners and future homeowners. The Edmonds tree ordinance violates
the 5th and 14' amendments and takings clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Washington State
Constitution, the Growth Management Act, and the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. She requested the
council reconsider and rescind the tree ordinance.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding Ordinance 4079, the 2017 upzone of the SR-99 and park
mitigation. In 2017 the City promised to improve the park system within or near SR-99 to address
geographic gaps in service. Specifically, the City promised to expand and partner with the Edmonds
School District. This was always a bit of a false commitment as there are no Edmonds schools in the SR-
99 area. Second, explore property acquisition and development and partner with neighboring and
overlapping jurisdictions to expand recreational opportunities for the community. By and large that did
not happen with the exception for the Uptown Market last year, no acquisition and no improvements since
2017. Chase Lake is not in the SR-99 area so another false commitment. Third, acquire park land in the
SR-99/104 area to provide adequate park services in redeveloping areas, create new civic spaces to
enhance investment and revitalization while meeting recreational needs especially where service gaps
exist or high residential impact is planned. That clearly did not happen. Defining the best routes and
treatments to create pedestrian and bicycle corridors did not happen. Increasing connections to the
Interurban Trail using signage, sidewalks, curb extensions and other pedestrian and bicycle enhancements
focusing on crossing Highway 99; the City did not even include the Interurban Trail in the bicycle
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 63
5.1.e
improvement plan. Strongly considering the formation of a Metropolitan Park District; again, did not
happen. Broken promises from the past five years not fulfilled in the draft PROS Plan. One new
proposition with only a $1.5 million budget will be less than 1 acre and will not provide adequate service
for residents living in the area with the growth and existing land use applications let alone what is planned
over the coming years or make up for the historic inequity in service provided to this area.
Ms. Seitz continued, those living in the area pay increased property taxes associated with higher land
values in the SR-99 area which the City caused despite the upzone so the expensive property excuse is not
valid because residents already pay higher taxes to offset higher acquisition costs. All the park mitigation
in Ordinance 4079 is feasible if the City stops diverting their revenue to downtown. The PROS Plan CFP
demonstrates the City does not have the will to mitigate development impacts because they are not
identified in the PROS Plan as promises made to this area. With the over $41 million of investment
identified for downtown compared to the less than $4 million for SR-99, the City is not creating spaces
for these commitments to occur. Section 5B of Ordinance 4079 identifies that planned action ordinances
shall be reviewed no later than five years from the effective date by the SEPA responsible official. The
assumptions made by the environmental impact statement are not relevant because the City did not
undertake the required mitigation and is not planning to. August 2022 is the timeline for this review; she
requested the City perform outreach and engage the SR-99 community in the SEPA responsible official's
review of the EIS.
Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, asked whether any of the apartments proposed in BD2 would be designated
for lower rent housing. Next, she did not want streateries to return to Edmonds, noting there were other
options for outside dining. She was interested in having things done to the right-of-way on Highway 99 to
improve safety. She supported construction of a parking garage in downtown Edmonds, envisioning it
would solve a lot of problems. She did not object to closing Main Street occasionally such as once a
month in the evenings, but she did not support an open pavilion with no parking. Something needs to be
done about all the crime on 80t' and 76t''.
Arisha Ko, Edmonds, described her family's circumstances over the past 16 months. Her parents are
immigrants from Hong Kong and she is the first generation to go high school and university. They are
trying to open a family business restaurant in Edmonds near Highway 99. Her 75-year old uncle has been
helping her dad realize his dream of opening a small business noodle shop. Unfortunately, their general
contractor's construction estimate of $138,000 went up to $400,000 with equipment. Her family will be
borrowing those funds from their uncle. They trusted the contractor to do the work, but he did not finish
the fire alarm system and they failed their firm alarm inspection. The contractor hired a lawyer to sue
them and for the past 16 months they have been unable to afford to pay for the fire alarm system. As a
result, her family has been struggling with mental health issues, including her father with anxiety
disorder. They want to open a noddle shop, Harvest Wonton Noodle, in Edmonds.
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2022
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2022
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 64
5.1.e
With regard environmental impacts, Council President Olson said the City has been aware of creek
impacts and downstream stormwater issues for decades and this is an opportunity to deal with some of
those issues. With regard to the WWTP, perhaps some of the funds could be used to address the new
environmental requirement/standard that the WWTP is being held accountable for. Retention of WWTP
employees is a real issue and has been on the City's radar and would be money well spent. The nonprofit
allocation was underfunded in the last funding allocation. She encouraged councilmembers to share their
thoughts regarding this opportunity.
Councilmember Paine suggested when this comes back to council, hearing more about green
infrastructure related to global warming and climate crisis. She was also interested in hearing from
directors about their progress on opportunities such as the Perrinville Creek watershed and making a
lasting impact. She was interested in lessening the burden on carbon fuels that are completely destroying
the planet. The council also needs to hear about projects that are already underway. With regard to
providing funds to nonprofits, she was interested in hearing about nonprofits' needs. Some nonprofits
have other funding streams from ARPA; for example, the Edmonds Center for the Arts has some terrific
funding sources. She was also interested in supporting human services and ensuring Edmonds is funding
its fair share and taking advantage of collaborative programs with neighboring communities.
Councilmember Chen said his priorities are small businesses and family relief. There are many small
business who are struggling such as those in Plum Tree Plaza who were negatively impacted by a fire and
some are still looking for space and recovery. He referenced the comments by during Audience
Comments regarding Ms. Ko's family's struggles. Many of the services provided to residents are offered
by nonprofits and they should not be forgotten. A third priority is a homeless shelter and wraparound
services. Last week the council passed a compassionate enforcement ordinance; now it is up to the
council to follow up by provide the necessary services and shelter to make the ordinance better. The
environment is also important; flooding from Perrinville Creek needs to be taken care of.
Councilmember L. Johnson reported she recently learned the City of Kenmore made affordable housing
their #1 priority and have discussed dedicating half of their ARPA funds toward 100 units of affordable
30% or below AMI. She hoped Edmonds would explore that. She also supported fully funding human
services and fully funding Edmonds's share of short term shelter and not simply relying on other cities to
provide it.
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. BD2 DESIGNATED STREET FRONT
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin commented there is some urgency to lifting the
moratorium. The last time this was discussed, council was exploring the possibility of extending the
designated street frontage. Staff wanted to ensure council understands the implications of doing that, what
a market demand analysis says, and will present that information tonight. Mixed development is
definitely supported by the comprehensive plan as is residential development. This will offer transparency
to what the market wants to do and what the implication would be in terms of extending street frontage or
not in meeting comprehensive plan goals. She apologized for the late arrival of agenda materials,
acknowledging it was a lot to process overnight
Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Recap
o Multifamily Building Permit Moratorium Ord. 4247 adopted to address insufficient design
standards for multifamily only building in the BD2 zone
o Moratorium extended three times —Ordinances 4253, 4254, and 4255
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 65
5.1.e
o Interim Design Standards for BD2 properties outside the designated street front that allowed
multifamily only were adopted April 29t' with Ordinance 4256
o Led to discussions regarding BD allowed uses and designated street front
o Council indicated a desire to explore expanding the designated street front
• Potential Designated Street Front Designation
� Designated Strcel Fran! �
o�
6ALEY ST
FC( 2 c —
Av J r --
t
4~
� sni
• eR[L =
TELL ST
,-.FT��.
.:. .. __
Spit p01
'a
5 a
ALDER ST
yyeR I Si AlkDl SI
�r Tr, fn--�
i Bn3
n s. ELL IAt � ncNo.0 LY
vr.n t0.Ne
a F
EREER DR
o Councilmembers voiced interest to have commercial office to support retail core
o Legislative history favored pedestrian activity and commercial uses on both sides of the street
as part of the original designation
o Solid blue line = designated street front current in the zoning code
o Light blue = potential areas for expansion of the designated street front
■ 6' Avenue & Main down to Dayton
■ On Sunset, extending 2nd Avenue to James Street
■ Dayton & Third
• 16.43.020 Uses Table
o Clarify ambiguities
o Fill in blanks in uses created by Ordinance 3955
o Reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational requirements
0 Comprehensive plan: Supports a mix of land uses
o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E, E-1
■ Provide for a strong central retail core ... while providing for a mixture of supporting
commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area.
■ Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and
cultural activities.
• BD Zone Purposes — ECDC 16.43.030
o ...Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a
mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core
area.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 66
5.1.e
Designated Street Front — key differences
o Must be commercial use within first 45 feet of designated street front
0 12-foot minimum ground floor height in BD2 (15 feet in BD 1)
o Different design standards
Market Demand Analysis
o Would designated street front restrictions inhibit market demand for residential development?
o Is there existing market demand for mixed commercial buildings?
o Is there market demand for solely commercial buildings?
Market Analysis Area
o Target Area 1: Edmonds BD1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 designated areas, defined by blue outlined areas,
focus of commercial analysis
o Target Area 2: Expanded search area around downtown core area, defined by yellow
0 Commercial Space Demand Data
RETAIL MARKET
Current
Average days on Market
All SF types of Spaces
available spaces
DOM
Historical days on market — last 3.5 years
N/A
255 DOM (historical)
General retail
5
276 DOM (current)
Vacant — not listed: C'est La Vie
1
N/A
Business appears closed — not listed:
1
N/A
Bop N Burger
OFFICE MARKET
Current
Average days on Market
All SF types of spaces
available spaces
(DOM)
Historical days on market — last 3.5 years
N/A
230 DOM (historical)
1000 to 2000 sf spaces are what currently
7
307 DOM (current)
is available
o Closeness of the historic and current DOM is an indicator of a stable market. Inventory is low
in retail sector but not considered a leasers market
o Retail is the stronger of the two commercial uses based on DOM
Multifamily Rental Units Demand
o Approximately 425 MF rental units in study area
■ 56% Two -bedroom
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 9
Packet Pg. 67
5.1.e
■ 34% One -bedroom
■ 10% Studio and Three -bedroom
0 1 % vacancy rate in the study area
■ 5 —6% vacancy rate considered strong and balanced market
■ Average DOM approximately 20 days
o Biggest takeaway from multifamily information is short supply and high demand of rental
units
o Study did not look at affordability of units, low inventory drives up rents, limiting who can
live in the downtown Edmonds area.
Mr. Lien explained the analysis also looked at types of development that occur:
• Option 1 — Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3-Story over below
grade parking
o Residential Units
�a:1=U•1
■ 2 BR: 7
■ 3 BR: 3
■ Total:22
o Garage parking (1 stall per unit required): 22
o Building height:
■ Garage below level
■ First floor: 9'
■ Second floor: 9'
■ Third floor: 9'
■ Parapet: 3'
■ Total Height: 30'
Option 2: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Residential Option 3 story
o Residential Option
■ 1 BR: 6
■ 2 BR: 6
■ 3 BR: 3
■ Total: 15
o Garage parking at grade (1 stall per unit required): 16
o Building height:
■ First floor: 10'
■ Second floor: 9'
■ Third floor: 9'
■ Parapet: 2'
■ Total Height: 30'
Option 3: Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning/Commercial Option 2-Story
o Commercial: 1900 square feet
o Residential Option
■ 1 BR: 4
■ 2 BR: 2
■ 3 BR: 2
■ Total: 8
o Garage parking (1 stall per unit required): 12
o Building height:
■ First floor: 12'
■ Second floor: 8'
■ Parapet: 2'
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 10
Packet Pg. 68
5.1.e
■ Total Height: 2'
o Note: Financial feasibility of a 2-story with commercial may be questionable. Third floor
may not be feasible due to 30' height limitation and specific site constraints
Examples of three story development with below grade commercial entrance
0 307 Bell Street
0 2' & Main (Post Office)
Conclusion of market analysis
o The risk associated with the long absorption time for retail spaces coupled with the drastic
reduction in rental residential units would make mixed use projects not feasible for the
average boutique developer.
Recommendation
o Given that the current designated street front map is consistent with the comprehensive plan
and BD zoning purpose, staff does not recommend extending the designated street front
o Adopt amendment to ECDC 16.40.020 use table which clarifies ambiguity within the code
Councilmember Paine commented there are new properties coming on line in BD 1 that are all
commercial. The analysis recognized it is not a big zone and she asked how having commercial space in
BD 1 would impact BD2. Ms. McLaughlin referred to DOM and the absorption rate and how it factors
into the proforma for developers making those decisions. A solely commercial building has the lowest
absorption rate. Given the increase in commercial from Main Street Commons, the report mentions that
may dilute the absorption rate potential for commercial. It is important to differentiate between
commercial and retail, commercial office, which is allowed in the BD2 zone, has the lowest absorption
rate. Retail has a positive absorption rate, however, the Main Street Commons presents a question
whether it will dilute the historic absorption rate.
Council President Olson commented the council had been waiting for the market analysis; it was not
intentional for it to be added to the packet late. The intent was to have this on last week's agenda, but that
was not possible as the information was not yet available from the consultant. She agreed with the comps,
Mukilteo and Snohomish, and she found the comparisons enlightening for Edmonds as well as for the
other cities. One of the possible deficits in Edmonds compared to other cities is parking per unit;
Edmonds is the only city with 1 space per housing unit versus 1.5-2 parking spaces per unit in other
cities; even the smallest units have 1.5 parking spaces. Edmonds may want to evaluate that criteria.
Council President Olson recognized the importance of what is happen with the Edmonds Commons and
the addition of commercial property, but it is open door commercial property, it is all restaurants. The
design of the BD zones was to have offices in the next ring. As downtown expands, having businesses
and patrons for those businesses is appropriate. She referred to a written comment submitted to council
regarding the idea of versatility and the ability to change the lower level from commercial to residential
via a code change in the future if there is less demand for commercial. However, it does not seem
appropriate to shortcut the BD2 zone today which is what would be done if the edge on the side of 6th at
least is not captured. She remarked on the differential between the commercial absorption on 5t' heading
toward Pine versus on Main Street.
Ms. McLaughlin advised the exiting BD2 zone accommodates commercial, but the proposal the City
received was not commercial. It likely was not commercial because of the absorption rate and the risk to
developers of building solely a commercial building and combining it with residential does not get the
residential yield to justify it due to DOM for a commercial tenant space. Some of the risk is if that mixed
use development isn't feasible, development will not turn over.
Councilmember Tibbott said his comments relate well to Council President Olson's comments. The
spaces currently in the corners where consideration is being given to extending the street front are
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 69
5.1.e
currently commercial spaces that are rented and where businesses have been in existence for many years.
As the downtown continues to grow and become more robust, the City will run out of that kind of space
in the downtown area. He had no reason to dispute the DOM that were presented, but recalled the spaces
at 2" d and Main filled up quickly with interesting and exciting businesses that the City was glad to have
them. He anticipated the City would be glad to have commercial businesses in the areas where the
designated street front was extended. There are a lot of ways to configure buildings and improve
residential opportunities.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed one of his concerns was losing service space. Eliminating the ability for
residents to walk to a service business instead of driving was a lost opportunity so he wanted to preserve
those commercial space. There are many good examples of integrating commercial into a building that
conformed with the parameters. It may not be ideal to step down into a commercial space, but when
visiting one of those spaces recently, he found it very nice and people appreciate those spaces even if
have to step down two steps.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented all the information in the presentation was new to her as she had
no time to read it prior to the meeting. In addition, it came to a conclusion very rapidly. She asked staff to
review the conclusions again. Ms. Laughlin explained staff wanted to make sure if the designated street
front was extended, there would still be developable lots given the market demand for mixed use
development. The study found it could be more challenging to build a mixed use development with a
residential component, literally because of the ground floor height requirement for commercial offices (12
feet) or retail (15 feet). Those requirements, combined with the City's 30 foot height limit, mean it is not
possible to get enough residential units to ensure a return. The analysis concluded that long absorption
rate to occupy commercial and retail spaces, coupled with the reduction in the number of residential units,
means a mixed use project would be very challenging on these sites. Staff recommends not extending the
designated street front, because there can still be mixed use development, commercial development, and
residential development within the existing zoning and would allow the market to dictate. It is also
consistent with the comprehensive plan and existing zoning ordinance.
Councilmember K. Johnson how many closed door business are currently in the 6t' & Main development.
Mr. Lien estimated 8-10. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if those eight businesses could be replaced.
Ms. Laughlin answered staff is not the developer of this parcel; staff is looking at what the market is
demanding and understanding the likelihood of what types of development they may see. The market
analysis showed those types of businesses are more sluggish at the moment, but that's okay because when
looking at the mix of retail, commercial and residential in downtown Edmonds, there is a very healthy
market overall. The other good news is residential development will continue to boost economic
development; the report states the City cannot go wrong with adding residences to a robust economy that
serves retail and commercial which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. She summarized staff s
goal is to offer transparency to the council with the market analysis and understand the implications. Staff
is not developing this parcel and she did not want to be too hyper focused on that development in
particular.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to understand the implications of eliminating eight closed
door businesses; those businesses may not relocate in the retail core. Ms. McLaughlin suggested Cynthia
Berne, Long Bay Enterprises, address that. Ms. Berne relayed her understanding there was a specific
proposal for development on the northeast corner of 6" & Main and there are currently two houses with
commercial offices. She asked if Councilmember K. Johnson's question was if those offices were
removed for a new development, would they find places elsewhere within downtown Edmonds to locate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said her question was whether those eight closed door businesses located on
Main Street would be able to find closed door business space in that area. Ms. Berne answered in the area
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 70
5.1.e
they studied, which was not a full-blown study due to a limited area and limited time, there were spaces
where those businesses could relocate in that core area.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled citizens have complained about the scale of development. She asked
if the frontage were extended and it was a mixed use development, would the building scale be less and
more compatible with the adjacent residential areas. Ms. Berne answered that was a complicated question;
a lot of analysis goes into developing property. That could possibly be the case, but it could be
commercial development on first floor, office or retail, most likely retail because offices do not like to be
on the first floor, the rest would be residential. If the building was residential multifamily units or
commercial on the first floor, depending on how it is designed, a developer could do a 3-story building
with underground parking. She concluded the building could be exactly the same scale with or without
commercial depending on how the developer analyzes the feasibility of the project.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if commercial was allowed in BD2. Ms. Berne answered yes. Ms.
McLaughlin commented there could be a solely residential building. Councilmember K. Johnson said her
question was whether commercial was allowed in the BD2 zone. Ms. McLaughlin answered yes. Ms.
Berne asked if her question was related to commercial office or retail; commercial is a general category.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she meant closed door businesses. Ms. Berne asked if that meant office
and/or services. Councilmember K. Johnson answered yes. Ms. Berne said those are allowed in the BD2
zone. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if retail was allowed in the BD2. Ms. Berne answered yes, both
commercial uses are allowed in BD2.
Councilmember K. Johnson did not understand the conclusion not to designate the street front in that
area. Ms. McLaughlin said the conclusion comes from the market analysis. Staff s recommendation pulls
from that conclusion and the reason is because there can be a mix of uses, retail, commercial, residential
under the existing zoning, Extending the street front designation would limit what developers can do and
the City may not see any development in the near term. In terms of limiting the potential to build
residential units downtown, staff thinks that's problematic given there is a very low supply and as the
market analysis indicated only a 1% vacancy rate, a very high demand for residential units. Because of
those implications, staffs recommendation is not to extend the designated street front.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that recommendation was based on the 1% vacancy rate. Ms.
McLaughlin advised it was based on the conclusion, the risk associated with long absorption time. If a
building is required to be mixed use, either retail or office for the 45' depth in the BD2 zone, the
absorption rate is quite lengthy so a developer would need to lean on the residential unit yield of the
development to make it feasible. If the number of residential units is cut in half with this zoning change,
that means a developer will likely not be able to make a mixed use development work.
Ms. Berne commented this a very complex discussion on a very complex topic. There are no black and
white answers; she has been a developer and developed projects throughout her career. She listed a few
factors that go into a development analysis.
1. Absorption rate — this is a critical element of the pro -forma analysis that determines financial
feasibility (different types of pro forma analysis can be based on profit margin, internal rate of
return or return on investment). The absorption rate assumptions are based on historical DOM for
the proposed use and projections as to what the future absorption could be. Absorption rates are
directly related to the risk of the given project.
2. Cost of asset management after the project is complete — a mixed use project requires a more
complete property management system than a single use project.
3. The economies of scale — this is directly related to maximizing the highest and best use of a
property, which includes the greatest density possible to spread all the cost of developing and
maintaining the property over the greatest number of income -producing units.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 13
Packet Pg. 71
5.1.e
4. Construction costs — these vary significantly depending on the complexity of the site, the size of
the development company itself, and the market cost of labor and materials.
Ms. Berne explained given the current market in commercial uses and residential supply, they considered
what a developer would to build in the community and how would they look at it given assumptions they
have to make. They will look at current absorption rates; the new retail space, Edmonds Commons, will
be an indicator of how much retail the community can absorb. There are two large spaces in that
development that have not been leased, one that is 4,000 square feet and another that is 1,900 square feet.
If those remain vacant when it opens, that is an indicator there is not a huge demand for more retail
development. Office space has softened, there is more available than there was in the last two years; it not
a bad market but it is not a hot market. Their conclusion was a developer will look at the biggest demand
in the community and that is residential. There is a huge demand for multifamily residential in the
downtown area and there is very little supply. This only affects 21 lots in the BD2 zone, some of which
cannot be developed individually and would have to be assembled. It is about 15 development projects
that could include retail or office on the bottom floor or not.
Mayor Nelson commented this agenda item had exceed the allocated 30 minutes. He asked when council
was provided this packet. Ms. McLaughlin answered 7 p.m. yesterday. He commented when
councilmembers publicly acknowledge they have not read the packet and now want full-fledged
explanations, that holds up and delays everything else. He reminded councilmembers to come prepared so
meetings can be more productive.
Councilmember Buckshnis said providing council a packet at 7 p.m. last night was not a lot of time, but
she read it. She acknowledged the highest and best use downtown would be an apartment complex. A lot
of time was devoted to crafting the BD2 zone in 2013 and it is an offshoot of the BD 1 zone. She did not
believe it should be changed. Ten businesses have been displaced; the other building purchased by this
developer displaced several other businesses. Those business owners are upset and contacted her, but do
not want to rock the boat. She wanted to keep BD2 as it is with the storefront. She referred to the
Greggory building which was the first one with below grade commercial. She recalled the Spee property
took about five years to get through council. The council has spent a lot of time on these designations.
Sixth & Main is a main corridor where there is a lot of traffic.
Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged a lot people want to live downtown but the fact of the matter is
35% of downtown is already residential. Her vision was to retain the charm in Edmonds and that does not
include allowing multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone. She referred to 39.80.018 which states BD2 is
mixed commercial. The City's comprehensive plan is very outdated and still includes Edmonds Crossing.
She wondered where the ten displaced business would go. Likely they would not be able to afford to
locate in a new building due to increased rent. She preferred to honor downtown businesses and if the
desire was to change the entire BD2 zone, it should be mapped out clearly and not spend less than two
months trying to figure it out, getting a report at 7 p.m. last night and discussing such a hot topic tonight.
She has received a lot of comments from people who are tired of talking about it because no one is doing
anything other than trying to pushing this building through.
Councilmember L. Johnson said listening to this discussion begs the question where is the concern over
the housing shortage, an actual crisis, homes for people to live in, specially multifamily? She had yet to
hear anything about a commercial or retail space crisis, yet the council's focus is on retail displacement
without any actual facts. Her hairdresser was one of the displaced businesses and they found another
location and she suspected others have as well. Councilmembers are referring to the displacement of ten
businesses when there are spaces available to absorb them. She referred to a councilmember's comment
that commercial in the downtown area gives residents an opportunity to walk to a service base; walking is
only possible if one lives in the general area, yet another bowl centric focus. There are many other areas
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 72
5.1.e
of Edmonds where services can be increased such as Highway 99; she suggested adding services there
that are within walking distance, it does not have to be bowl centric. The analysis found absorption is
longer for commercial; vacant spaces do not create vibrancy, people do. People living in an area support
business.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, this began as a concern with how the building looks; that can be
addressed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Councilmembers keep throwing out other things,
but are not interested in addressing the housing shortage. The council should be prioritizing multifamily,
not fighting against. If it is a priority of council to increase commercial, although it should be a priority to
increase multifamily, she suggested talking about increasing heights, something that was mentioned in the
report but not discussed. In light of news reports about housing and the 1% multifamily vacancy rate in
Edmonds, the council's roundabout discussion does not make sense, priorities are very mixed up and they
do not address the need for housing. She reiterated the council should talk about increasing heights, what
that would look like and what that would offer.
Ms. McLaughlin commented an aspects of the report was to look at zoning challenges if the designated
street front were extended, One of those challenges is the 12-foot floor height suitable for commercial
office. Adding two floors of residential then bumps up against the 30-foot height limit. Sunken
commercial office is challenging from both an absorption rate perspective and is not best practice for
pedestrian friendly design as it is not accessible for people with disabilities and is more expensive. As the
report indicates, the delta is only 2-5 feet; trying to mitigate for the sunken commercial office strategy and
allowing developers to get 3 floors which pencils out for the mixed use development option.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to a statement that given the height restrictions, mixed use projects
are not feasible for the average boutique builder. She asked if an additional 2-5 feet were allowed, would
mixed use development be feasible for the average boutique developer. Ms. McLaughlin answered that is
what the consultant team concluded. She recognized applying that to Edmonds was challenging. If that
tactic would make mixed use development successful on these BD2 properties and council is willing to
support it, that is a solid recommendation to get what we want, mixed use develop in the BD2 to support
the retail core.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented it is clear something has to give and she hoped it was not
decreasing the availability of multifamily. To her a win -win across the board would be to consider a
height increase and she hoped other councilmembers would consider that. Ms. Berne answered if the
height were increased 2-2% feet, there would be a much more pedestrian friendly commercial spaces. She
pointed out the different between walking down the older Main Street where everything is at eye level
and very inviting compared to the below grade commercial spaces which are not as inviting and not
artistically creative. An addition 2 feet would also result in more residential because the extra 2 feet
would allow commercial with 2 floors of residential. The 30 foot heigh limit at one time meant 3 floors
with 10 feet per floor. The below grade commercial has been an unintended consequence of the 30-foot
height limit
Councilmember Chen appreciated the study and the discussion, noting a lot of work was done in a short
amount of time. He referred to the conclusion, which relates to whether the development will work for the
developer. He acknowledged developers are very important to the economy, but he preferred the study
focus on Edmonds, whether extending the designated street front was good or bad for the City in the long
term. Real estate and commercial markets fluctuate. He preferred the study focus on the outlook for the
City and not what will work for the developer.
Ms. McLaughlin answered that was where staff was coming from, what is the intent of the zoning code
and comprehensive plan. She agreed demands fluctuates; staff has done a thorough job of interpreting the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 73
5.1.e
policies, zoning code and market demand, the conclusion is not based on a single parcel. All the parcels
that extending the designated street front would apply to were considered and then the average was
factored into the analysis. She empathized the analysis did not focus on a particular parcel or
development; it is about the best approach for the City for the BD2 zone. The goal is to afford the most
flexibility so it does not result in undevelopable lots thereby resulting in a de facto moratorium or lots that
are developed and cannot be occupied (risk of vacancy). It is about balancing marketing demand as it
fluctuates and giving developers the most flexibility moving forward.
Council President Olson remembered a terrific business, a drop in daycare operated by December Louis,
commenting it would be amazing to have a daycare like that at the top of Main Street. She recalled the
history of the 25 foot height going to 30 feet height was the 25 foot limit resulted in 2 story buildings with
flat roofs. The height limit was changed to 30 feet to get pitched roofs, but now people are building flat
roofs to get 3 floors. Mr. Lien explained the height limit actually came down. Back in the day, there was a
40 foot height limit downtown that was reduced to 35 and then to 30 feet in about 1980. What has
changed over the years is what happens between 25 and 30 feet. There have been pitched roofs,
modulation, etc. He summarized the 30 foot height limit has been in place since about 1980.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
THAT THE BD USE TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020.A BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE
AMBIGUITY IN THE TABLE AND THAT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT
5 TO AMEND DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND AMEND ECDC 16.43.020.A BE
ADOPTED.
Council President Olson stressed this is an interim ordinance. The council got this information really late,
but the council needs to make a decision because the moratorium is coming to an end. There are a lot of
moving parts; for example, looking at the designated street front map, it is appropriate to extend it on 6t'
but it may be worth considering moving it north on 5" Avenue and allow more residential there. Since
this is an interim ordinance, it will go to the planning board and there will be more public hearings, so the
council should adopt something a little more conservative that protects the core. A lot of time, effort and
thought went into establishing the BD zones and how they supported each other and in the next few
months, these other things can be discussed with more public participation and participation by the
experts on the planning board.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Council President Olson advised this was staff s recommendation in the
original packet, not the staff recommendation provided today. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed
support for the motion, and recommended re -analyzing the BD zones. She believed what was done in
2013 was very thorough and comprehensive and she would like to retain mixed use commercial.
Councilmember Paine did not support extending the designated street frontage for the reasons outlined
tonight. BD2 allows for mixed use which means multifamily, commercial and all the options. The most
conservative methodology would be ensure developers and businesses are not impacted in ways the City
cannot recover from. The demand analysis states to have effective commercial, building heights would
need to be raised 2-5 feet and that current market conditions support multifamily housing. The City needs
more housing in the downtown area; housing abundance and options are good for the community. She
supported having more analysis done, but was not in favor of extending the moratorium or having a de
facto moratorium. She supported having this considered in a broader way through normal procedures like
multifamily design guidelines and zoning.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to comments about sticking with the original 2013 plan. That begs
the question whether there was a housing crisis in 2013 and what was the focus in 2013. Sometimes
things need to change with the times and not get stuck in the past. This presentation was through and the
information, although provided late, was easy to understand; a councilmember only needed to read it and
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 74
5.1.e
it pretty much explained itself although it may not have been the outcome some hoped for. With regard to
analysis, no analysis is needed to understand the need for more housing; the need is clear, specifically
multifamily housing. A delay does not address the housing crisis, something the City needs to focus on
and it also seems like kicking can down the road. She did not support the motion.
Councilmember Chen said he cannot support the proposal, not because he didn't not like it, but because
he was confused. Within the same meeting, staff presented two conflicting recommendations, one is to
extend and this one is not to extend. More analysis is needed. Ms. McLaughlin said staff did not
recommend extending the designated street front in a previous agenda. Mr. Lien explained the ordinance
in the packet was for council consideration. Ms. McLaughlin said the ordinance was prepared that way
because at a previous meeting, it appeared the council wanted to go in that direction. Given the timeliness
the moratorium, staff wanted to have that ordinance ready but wanted to share the implications of doing it
so council could make an informed decision.
Mayor Nelson clarified staff drafted an ordinance but did not recommend it. Ms. McLaughlin said staff s
recommendation was not to extend; council asked for an evaluation related to extending the designated
street front.
Councilmember Chen asked if this was urgent or was there more time. Mr. Lien answered the moratorium
expires June 2" d which is one of the reason the ordinance is in the packet. If council acts on the ordinance
tonight, it will be in effect before the moratorium ends. The urgency depends on whether the council
wants to extend the designated street front. It is possible to extend the moratorium again, but it has been
extended three times already. Councilmember Chen concluded more study was needed including looking
at the relationship to the City's development from a long term standpoint, not from the standpoint of one
project. Ms. McLaughlin said the analysis studied all the parcels this would be applicable to
approximately 15 parcels.
Council President Olson referred to the agenda memo which states staff will provide a more specific
recommendation at the council meeting on Tuesday. This was not the recommendation in the packet. The
motion she made was in conflict with the recommendation made on the slide. Her recommendation is in
the interim, stay the course, extend the designated street front on Main and through the process that
follows, all of this will be revisited during the hearings. She asked it was better to adopt an interim
ordinance rather than extend the moratorium or would it be better to extend the moratorium. Ms.
McLaughlin agreed with a previous councilmember's comment that enough analysis has been done to
know where this will land. At this point up it is to council in terms of the direction they want to go, vote
to either extend the designated street front or not. Council President Olson clarified the motion on the
table is to extend the designated street front and all the attachments to the ordinance in the original packet
before the new information yesterday.
For Councilmember L. Johnson, Council President Olson explained the motion is the last two sentences
on packet page 196 in the staff recommendation section. That section also stated staff would provide a
more specific recommendation at the council meeting on Tuesday. She restated the motion:
THAT THE BD USE TABLE IN ECDC 16.43.020.A BE AMENDED TO CLARIFY THE
AMBIGUITY IN THE TABLE. A DRAFT ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 5 WHICH AMENDS THE
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND AMENDS ECDC 16.43.020.A IS HEREBY MOVED.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO SIMPLY CLARIFY THE AMBIGUITY BUT NOT EXTEND THE
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT.
Councilmember L. Johnson said obviously the ambiguity needs to be clarified, but as has been stated, the
moratorium has been extended a number of times, the council has the information it needs to make an
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 75
5.1.e
informed decision. Clarifying the ambiguity is necessary but she did not believe extending the designated
street front was in the City's best interest.
Councilmember K. Johnson did not support the amendment although she supported the original motion.
She clarified a misstatement during discussion, when she on the planning board in 2012, there was
discussion was about 25 plus 5 feet not 30 feet. The height was never intended to be 30 feet, it was
intended to be 25 feet plus 5 feet for articulation.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the amendment because there is new, good, data -based
information and this is the cycle of market. This may have been what was needed in 2013 or 2008, but it
is no longer those times. Not extending the designated street front would allow more multifamily housing,
would not put the entire BD1 and BD2 in a moratorium, and offered Edmonds a lot more opportunity for
vibrancy and participation in the marketplace.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the amendment and will support original motion. Zoning is
permanent for a long time; this is the result of a rush decision, targeted toward one parcel when it affects a
larger area. From an interim standpoint, the 6th & Main parcel is very important to the downtown business
area and the designated street map should be extended to allow commercial on the lower level.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND
L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday pointed out the main motion is lacking specificity with regard to the map. Before the council
votes, he wanted to ensure staff understood the map because there is not an amended map in the packet.
He believed he understood what the maker of the motion intended and Mr. Lien described earlier in his
presentation where the designated street front could be extended. Mr. Lien said the amended map is
Exhibit 1, packet page 198. The ordinance contains a space for a public hearing date; a public hearing is
required within 60 days of adoption of an interim ordinance. He recommended setting the public hearing
date before the vote. July options include the 5th, 19th, or 26th. Council President Olson advised the public
hearing would be held on July 19th
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson commented he did not believe the council would get to the Waterfront Study agenda item.
2. STORMWATER CODE (ECDC 18.30) UPDATE
Interim Public Works Director Rob English introduced Rebecca Dugopolski, PE, Herrera Environmental
Consultants, and Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell. He explained this item was discussed
in July 2021 and public hearings were held in September 2021. The project was delayed by a SEPA
appeal and the resignation of the City's stormwater engineer. Staff is proceeding now that the appeal is
complete and Herrera Environmental Consultants was hired to help with the process.
Ms. Dugopolski reviewed:
• Why the Update?
o The Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit requires the City's development code to meet or
exceed Ecology's standards designed to protect surface water from being impacted by
development
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 24, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 76
5.1.f
ULong Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Real Estate Consulting
May 23, 2022
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Edmonds
Susan McLaughlin
Development Services Department Director
From: Long Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Cynthia Berne
Principal/Broker
Subject: Submarket Demand Analysis for Commercial uses in the BD2 zone and surrounding
Downtown zones.
Per your request we have performed a cursory market demand analysis regarding commercial
uses in the BD2 zone and immediate surrounding area of Downtown Edmonds. We have added
some general information about the current and recent history for the demand of rental multi-
family units. (See attached map depicting target areas referenced below.)
The commercial space analysis, approximate target area, borders Daley Street to the north, a
zigzag to the waterfront and 31 Ave to the west, Holly Drive to the south and 7th Ave to the east.
The multi -family rental information, approximate target area, borders Daley Street to the north,
waterfront to the west, Pine Street to the south and 7th Ave to the east.
Market demand for any use, does not limit itself to submarket zones, but more from a sense of
"place" for a given particular use. For instance, a retailer looking to locate in Downtown
Edmonds will focus on zones that allow the proposed use but will not target one zone. Rental
rates, parking availability, visibility to auto and pedestrian traffic are examples of criteria that
may go into a decision on where to locate rather than a specific zone.
Submarket Demand Analysis (studying a very small micro area) does not lend itself to the
general real estate data bases for all the statistical information. Many data bases are city wide
driven, and or regional analysis. We pulled information from several sources and then
extrapolated data for the micro area of study. This is not an exact science, as there may be a
pocket of data missed for the micro market area, but the sources below offer a comprehensive
look at Downtown Edmonds.
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc. 320 Dayton Street, # 200 Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 937-9536
www.longbayenterprises.com
Packet Pg. 77
List of sources used
5.1.f
Commercial Broker Association multiple listing data base
Northwest Multiple Listing Service data base
Snohomish County Assessor's web site
OfficeSpace.com
Hotpads.com
Loopnet.com
Apartment.com
Rent.com
Trulia.com
Walking the target area for signage of space available that is not listed in any of the above
COMMERCIAL SPACE DEMAND DATA
RETAIL MARKET
Current available
Average Days on Market (DOM)
all SF types of spaces
spaces
Historical Days on Market —
N/A
255 DOM (Historical)
Last 3.5 years
General Retail
5
276 DOM Current
Vacant — Not listed:
1
N/A
C'est La Vie
Business appears closed —
1
N/A
Not listed:
Bop N Burger
OFFICE MARKET
all SF types of spaces
Current available
spaces
Average Days on Market (DOM)
Historical Days on Market —
N/A
230 DOM (Historical)
Last 3.5 years
1000 to 2000 sf spaces are
7
307 DOM (Current)
what currently is available
MULTI -FAMILY RENTAL UNITS DEMAND DATA
There are approximately 425 muti family rental units in the target area. The largest number of
units are 2-bedrooms, which account for approximately 56% of the total units. One -bedroom
units represent approximately 34% of the total unit supply and the remainder 10% are 3
bedrooms and studios. Currently there are approximately 5 units (three 2-bedroom units and
two 1-bedroom units) available in the target area, which equate to a 1% vacancy rate. A 5-6%
vacancy rate is considered a strong and balanced market for Lessors and Lessees. From the
small amount of information, we could gather from our sources, we extrapolated the average
DOM to be approximately 20.
DEMAND CONCLUSION
The data above demonstrates that historically and currently the retail market has been stable,
strong, and even robust at times. The closeness of the historic and current DOM is a good
indicator of a stable market. The inventory is low in the retail sector but not what is considered
a Lessor's Market. The office data shows a stable and at times strong market. The retail
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Packet Pg. 78
5.1.f
market is the stronger of the two commercial uses analyzed, using the indicator of DOM as the
key factor. There are many other indicators to analyze but this study did not lend itself to the
next layer of research, that being calculating the full office and retail inventory in the entire
submarket. The additional information this next layer of research would provide is the vacancy
rate of each commercial use. The vacancy rate is a valid indicator but is more informative to a
prospective developer than prospective tenants or zoning criteria review.
The addition of Main Street Commons, to the commercial district of Downtown Edmonds, is
worth noting as a very large influx of retail uses that add to the current inventory. The absorption
rate of all the retail space in this new development will be a significant indicator of the strength
and demand for retail space. In many ways it is a project that will generate more interest in this
corridor, but it could also affect the inventory enough that the demand will slow due to this new
supply of spaces.
The multi -family information is more cursory in nature as it was not an initial request of this
analysis. It is an important factor in the overall review of zoning uses and requirements and
therefore we added this general information to help with the broader discussions. The biggest
take away from the multi -family information is the obvious short supply and high demand for
these rental units. We did not evaluate the affordability of the current market inventory, but a
brief look indicates that the extremely low inventory is driving the rent rates very high and
therefore limiting those that can afford to live in the Downtown Edmonds area.
FEASABILITY OF MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE BD2 ZONE
The results of the Otak massing development analysis identifies that the mixed -use alternative
reduces the number of multi -family units significantly in comparison to all residential unit
alternative. Due to the cumbersome height requirements for the commercial space and height
limit of the entire building, the project loses an entire floor of residential units, reducing the
number of units from 15 to 8. The commercial space is approximately 1900 SF which could
render 3 small -size retail spaces. The risk associated with the long absorption time for the
retail spaces (see chart above average DOM at 276) coupled with the drastic reduction in
rental residential units would make the mixed -use project not feasible for the average
boutique developer. There are several factors to consider for a project of this type to be
determined feasible; below are a few examples
1. Absorption rate —this is a critical element of the pro -forma analysis that determines
financial feasibility (different types of pro forma analysis can be based on profit margin,
internal rate of return or return on investment). The absorption rate assumptions are
based on historical DOM for the proposed use and projections as to what the future
absorption could be. Absorption rates are directly related to the risk of the given project
2. Cost of asset management after the project is complete- a mixed use project requires
a more complete property management system than a single use project.
3. The economies of scale — this is directly related to maximizing the highest and best
use of a property, which includes the greatest density possible to spread all the cost of
developing and maintaining the property over the greatest number of income- producing
units.
4. Construction Costs- these vary significantly depending on the complexity of the site,
the size of the development company itself, and the market cost of labor and materials
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Packet Pg. 79
5.1.f
Edmonds Map
Target Area 1: Edmonds BD1,2,3,4 & 5 Designated areas, defined by blue outlined area
Target Area 2: Expanded Search area around downtown core area, defined by yellow highlight
Long Bay Enterprises, Inc.
Packet Pg. 80
5.1.g
Otak
Memorandum
To: Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises
From: Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Chad Weiser
Copies: File
Date: May 23, 2022
Subject: Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations
Project No.: 20793
Purpose
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide recommendations to Edmonds City Staff and City Council
on potential code changes to the BD2 zoning regulations. The findings of this analysis indicate no
significant revisions to the code are required, although some minor refinements in code language and
standards should be considered. The recommendations include suggested code changes to the
requirements for the BD2 zone to address inconsistencies and to improve the ease of development for
owners and developers in achieving the intent of the allowances within the zone.
Summary of 13132 Zoning
Development in the BD2 zone is regulated through the development standards located in Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.43. New buildings in the BD2 zone located along a
Designated Street Front must have a street level floor with commercial uses at a minimum 12 foot height.
New buildings located outside of the Designated Street Front are not required to have commercial uses
on the first floor and may be multifamily residential (only) buildings.
New buildings in the BD2 zone are limited to 30 feet in height. Height is defined as the vertical distance
from the average level of the undisturbed soil of a site covered by a structure to the highest point of the
structure. Buildings located along a Designated Street Front are allowed to place commercial storefronts
below grade with limitations as defined in the code. No off-street parking is required for new commercial
or retail uses, and one parking space is required per multifamily residential unit. Public open space is
required in new developments on lots of 12,000 square feet or more or on lots with 120 feet or more of
street frontage. Please reference the Edmonds BD2 Zoning Memo for additional information.
Summary of Comparable Cities
Other Puget Sound communities similar to Edmonds, such as Mukilteo and Snohomish, have similar
downtown zoning requirements as Edmonds, although Edmonds has more subsets of their Downtown
Business District zoning. Mukilteo and Snohomish are similar in size and scale to Edmonds including their
downtown areas. In general, the Downtown Business District zoning is very comparable between all three
communities including permitted uses and bulk/dimensional standards. However, there are some minor,
but notable differences. Both Mukilteo and Snohomish have higher maximum height requirements (35
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com
I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx
Packet Pg. 81
Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations
Page 2 of 4
May 23, 2022
and 40 feet respectively) than Edmonds, but in comparison, require more off-street parking for both
commercial and residential uses. Mukilteo restricts residential development on the ground floor of new
buildings in their downtown business zone similar to Edmonds BD2 regulations for Designated Street
Front, while Snohomish has no restrictions on the location of residential development. Please reference
the Zoning Memo — Additional Research on Comparable Cities for additional information.
Recommendations
Permitted Uses
Permitted uses in the BD2 zone are listed in ECDC 16.43.020. No changes to specific permitted uses are
recommended. It is recommended to revise the use table ECDC 16.43-1 to clarify where multi -dwelling
housing is allowed to eliminate the inconsistencies in language regarding the allowance of all residential
development in the BD2 zone when not on a Designated Street Front.
Site Development Standards (setbacks, height)
Site development standards for the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(A). Existing regulations
limit building development in the BD2 zone to 30 feet in height. The analysis shows that a 30-foot building
height with a required 12-foot first floor height puts constraints on mixed use development within the
downtown core. Requiring a 12-foot commercial first floor along with a 30-foot height limit, constrains the
ability of a developer to build three stories on many sites within this zone. It is possible to develop a 3-
story mixed use building while meeting the code requirements for the BD2 zone if the site has sloping
topography and the commercial space is, in part, set below existing adjacent grade. By using the average
grade methodology for measuring building height, as defined in the code, developers have been able to
achieve a third floor. The addition of a third floor to a mixed use development project within the existing
height limits often results in needing to build a partially subterranean first floor. The below grade
commercial space impacts the aesthetics, marketability and desirability of street front commercial as well
as the general streetscape appearance in the downtown business district. Examples of developments in
the downtown business district where these regulations have impacted development have been included
for reference, see Figures 1, 2, and 3 below.
Figure 1. Three story development with a below grade commercial entrance.
I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx
Packet Pg. 82
Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations
Page 3 of 4
May 23, 2022
It is recommended a minor increase in allowed building height be considered in the BD2 zone, as well as
any other BD zones similarly affected. This height increase would create more flexibility for a developer to
design a 3-story mixed use development. An increase of two (2) to five (5) feet in building height would
encourage more 3-story mixed use redevelopment by making a third story feasible on more sites and
allowing already feasible sites to be developed in a manner that avoids less desirable subterranean first
floor commercial space. This recommended change is intended to make the Designated Street Front
commercial requirement as feasible to integrate into a 3-story development as developing an all -
residential development. Any increases in height should be crafted with code language that limits all BD2
development to no more than 3-stories in height.
Figure 2. Three story development with a below grade commercial entrance.
I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx
Packet Pg. 83
Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Recommendations
Page 4 of 4
May 23, 2022
G-gle EaM Pro — B X
File Edk Y J-k Ada yap
Figure 3 — A multi -family residential building (left) adjacent to a Mixed Use Building (right)
showing the 3-foot height difference in the first floor
Designated Street Front
Regulations for the Designated Street Front are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(B). The extent of Designated
Street Front as reflected on the Designated Street Front Map (EDCD Map 16.43-1), could be expanded
based on the discretion of the City Council and the City's goals for the downtown business district. An
expansion of the extents of Designated Street Front should be addressed in the context of the other noted
recommendations.
Off -Street Parking
Off street parking regulations in the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(D) The existing off-street
parking regulations are more flexible than comparable cities and do not negatively impact the ability to
develop parcels in the BD2 zone. As long as the community is not experiencing a negative impact from a
less stringent parking requirement in the downtown area, no changes are recommended for this
requirement.
Open Space
Open space regulations in the BD2 zone are located in ECDC 16.43.030.(E). No changes are
recommended for the Open Space regulations.
I: Itemplkernenlbdlcouncil 05.17.221final 22 0523_edmonds bd2 zoning analysisrecommendations.docx
Packet Pg. 84
ALLEY ACCESS
LL
U)
STAIRS
0
0
PARKING
rn
22
0
A
LU L
w
LU
d
LU
A
STAIRS
EL.
J
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT
GARAGE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
1BR: 12
2BR: 7
3BR: 3
TOTAL: 22
2 BR
921 SF
2BR
927 SF
STAIRS
1 BR
670 SF
1 BR
625 SF
1 BR
625 SF
1 BR
625 SF
STAIRS
3 BR
1,440 SF
EL-
LOBBY
WF
LAJ
2BR
2BR
921 SF
927 SF
STAIRS
1 BR
670 SF
2 BR
970 SF
1 BR
625 SF
STAIRS
EL.
3 BR
1 BR
1,325 SF
700 SF
GROUND LEVEL 2ND FLOOR
GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED)
TOTAL: 22
BUILDING HEIGHT:
GARAGE: BELOW GRADE
FIRST FLOOR: 9'
SECOND FLOOR: 9'
THIRD FLOOR: 9'
PARAPET: 3'
TOTAL HEIGHT: 30'
Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning /
Residential Option 3-Story Over Below Grade Garage
5.1.h
Y
2BR 2BR 0
921 SF 927 SF LL
L
STAIRS
1 BR 1 BR
685 SF 600 SF R
C
01
1 BR
.N
600 SF 1 6000
SF m
STAIRS d
!Z
EL. E
3 BR
1 BR 1,200 SF W
570 SF r
E
Iz
0
d
3RD FLOOR c
a�
c
c
m
L
O
0
U
00
c
a�
E
t
a
r
c
m
V
a
OPTION 1
Packet Pg. 85
RESIDENTIAL
IDENTIAL
.�V*Pv
REs,�roN dim
lgv� OT&I'lk
Packet Pg. 86
ALLEY ACCESS
STAIRS
vLLj
OIO
GARAGE
CO
PARKING
A 16
O
J
WIF
J
d
wLU
A
XI
U
W
STAIRS
I
3BR
1,260 SF
I
LOBBY
J
CL
O
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT Q
O
N
Q1
GROUND LEVEL 2ND FLOOR 3RD FLOOR L
aD
c
RESIDENTIAL OPTION: GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED)
1 BR: 6 TOTAL: 16 c
2BR: 6 0
3BR: 3 BUILDING HEIGHT: U
FIRST FLOOR: 10'
TOTAL: 15 SECOND FLOOR: 9'
THIRD FLOOR: 9'
PARAPET: 2'
TOTAL HEIGHT: 30' Q
r
c
m
E
t
Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning / Residential Option 3-Story
OPT10 Packet Pg. 87
46 V
va%lr S
RESIDENTIAL
OPTION 2
C
Co
a
Packet Pg. 88
ALLEY ACCESS
I
LL
STAIRS
to
0
GARAGE
0
PARKING
rn
A 12
O
J
W
�
J
LL
W
Q
BIKE
w
w
STAIRS
LOBBY
COMMERCIAL
1,900 SF
J
C
O
L
LL
U)
O
R
C
01
.N
m
W
O
Q
E
R
x
W
C
d
CL
0
DESIGNATED STREET FRONT o
4-
0
N
Q1
GROUND LEVEL
2ND FLOOR
L
aD
COMMERCIAL: 1,900 SF
GARAGE PARKING1:
(1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED)
TOTAL: 12
L
O
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
BUILDING HEIGHT:
NOTE:
U
1 BR: 4
FIRST FLOOR: 12'
Financial feasibility of a two-story with commercial may be
2BR: 2
SECOND FLOOR: 8'
questionable. Third floor may not be feasible due to 30' height
3BR: 2
PARAPET: 2'
limitation and specific site constraints.
E
TOTAL: 8
TOTAL HEIGHT: 22'
Q
r
c
m
E
t
Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning1 Commercial Option 2-Story
01 Packet Pg. 89
RESIDENTIAL
t4s
Packet Pg. 90
LU
w
w
H
ALLEY ACCESS
GROUND LEVEL
COMMERCIAL OPTION:
1,900 SF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
1 BR: 6
2BR: 6
3BR: 2
TOTAL:14
J
2 BR
2 BR
1,000 SF
925 SF
STAIRS
1 BR
755
2 BR
1,000 SF
1 BR
STAIRS
755
3 BR
1,140 SF
1 BR
755
2 BR
2 BR
1,000 SF
925 SF
STAIRS
1 BR
755
2 BR
1,000 SF
1 BR
STAIRS
755
3 BR
1,140 SF
1 BR
755
PAMBI VEi1161 1:191 IEi1161V
GARAGE PARKING1: (1 STALL PER UNIT REQUIRED)
TOTAL:14
BUILDING HEIGHT:
NOTE:
GROUND LEVEL: 12'
Third floor may not be feasible due to 30' height limitation and
FIRST FLOOR: 8'
specific site constraints. An additional 2' in height allows for a
SECOND FLOOR: 8'
more traditional building design that would front the street with
PARAPET: 2'
commercial at grade with fronting public sidewalk.
TOTAL HEIGHT: 32'
to
N
0
m
Edmonds Downtown Business BD2 Zoning / Commercial Option 3-Story a
OPT
Packet Pg. 91
RESIDENTIAL
loto 0
jpp�o I *
4:;;jg;ooA 9 'Ir
olawoovs
7A
COMMERCIAL
c
Co
Packet Pg. 92
5.1.i
Otak
-. a 0,0 .411 -0" "A 6 1
Memorandum
To: Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises
From: Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Otak
Copies: Chad Weiser, Otak
Date: May 19, 2022
Subject: Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Additional Research on Comparable Cities
Project No.: 20793
Purpose
The purpose of this memo is to provide a short summary of the approaches comparable cities to
Edmonds have taken to zone their historic downtowns. A summary of both the City of Snohomish's
Historic Business District zone and Mukilteo's Downtown Business zone have been provided below. A
comparison table, showing at a glance the differences between the approaches Snohomish, Mukilteo,
and Edmonds have taken in their downtown zoning, has been provided, see Table 1 below.
Table 1. Research Comparison Table
Setbacks
(NOTE: may differ for
developments
adjacent to
residential zones)
Max Height
Multi Family
allowed
Commercial Space
requirements
Open space
requirements
Special Parking
requirements
Commercial
parking
Edmonds BD2 Zone
0'
30'
Yes, but restricted on
`Designated Frontage
Streets'
Yes, first 45' of the
bottom floor must be
commercial
Yes (on lots larger
than 12,000 or with a
frontage of over 120 ft)
Yes
No parking required
for commercial or retail
uses. 1 parking space
required for every 500
Mukilteo DB Zone
0'
Required if necessary to
provide adequate 10'
wide sidewalk
35'
No, no multifamily only
structures allowed
Yes, the first portion of
the street level floor of all
structures must be
commercial
No
No
Parking varies per use.
4.5 to 5 spaces required
per 1,000 sqft of gfa for
commercial or retail uses
Snohomish HBD Zone
0'
40'
Yes, no restrictions
No, no requirements
No
Yes
1 parking space required
for every 400 sgft of new
commercial, retail, or
service uses.
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com
k:Iprojech20700120793105 documentslreports122_0519_edmonds bd2 zoning analysis —additional research on comparable cities
.docx
Packet Pg. 93
Page 2 of 2
Edmonds BD2 Zoning Analysis —Additional Research on Comparable Cities May 19, 2022
sqft of uses that are
not commercial or
residential.
Residential 1 parking space 1.5 spaces per studio
2 spaces for two -
parking required per and one -bedroom units, 2
bedroom dwellings or
multifamily unit. spaces for all other units,
larger, 1.5 spaces per
plus 1 space for every
one -bedroom dwelling,
four units for guest
1.2 spaces per dwelling
parking
unit per studio unit
Snohomish Downtown Zoning Summary
Snohomish has designated their downtown zoning district, the 'Historic Business District' (HBD).
Snohomish allows both multifamily buildings and mixed -use buildings anywhere within the HBD, but has a
max residential density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Snohomish has no setback requirements for
buildings in the HBD zone and has a max height of 40 feet. There are no open space requirements for
new structures in the HBD zone.
New buildings within the HBD zone containing commercial, retail, or services uses, must supply one off
street parking space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. Multifamily dwelling units must provide
parking based on unit size, 2 spaces for two -bedroom dwellings or larger, 1.5 spaces per one -bedroom
dwelling, and 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit per studio unit.
Mukilteo Downtown Zoning Summary
Mukilteo has designated their downtown zoning district 'Downtown Business' zone (DB). Multifamily
buildings are not permitted in the DB zone, residential units are only allowed as part of a mixed -use
building. The front portion of the street level of all structures must be occupies by commercial/retail uses.
Residential uses may be located above, behind or below commercial/retail uses. In the event that a lot
depth is less than 60 feet, the entire street level of the structure must be a commercial/retail use. Mukilteo
has designated certain streets as 'pedestrian -oriented street' in their downtown business district subarea
plan and has codified design standards pertaining to pedestrian access for structures along these
streets. All structures in the DB zone are encouraged to build right up to the lot line, unless a setback is
required for adequate pedestrian access, public space, or outdoor dining areas. The max height in the DB
zone is 35 feet.
There are no special parking regulations for the DB zone, parking is required based on the proposed use,
which can vary from 4.5 to 5 spaces required per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Residential uses
must provide one and one-half spaces per studio and one -bedroom units and two spaces for all other
units, plus one space for every four units for guest parking.
k:Iprojech20700120793105 documentslreports122_0519_edmonds bd2 zoning analysis —additional research on comparable cities
.docx
Packet Pg. 94
5.1.j
Otak
_. a 0,0 .411 -0" "A 6 1
Memorandum
To:
Cynthia Berne, Long Bay Enterprises
From:
Sierra Carson, AICP Candidate, Otak
Copies:
Chad Weiser, Otak
Date:
May 19, 2022
Subject:
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Project No.:
20793
Zoning Analysis
The purpose of this zoning memorandum is to provide a summary of the development regulations in the
city of Edmonds BD2 zoning district. This summary will support the planning team with development of
designing yield alternatives analyzing the effects of zoning changes on housing yields.
Background
The purpose of the Downtown Business (BD) zone is to:
■ Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses
supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a destination for visitors
from throughout the region.
■ Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links
and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity.
■ Identify supporting arts and mixed -use residential and office areas which support and complement
downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while
providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this
retail core area.
■ Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on
small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses.
The "downtown business" zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to implement
specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center. Each
subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as described in this chapter. The
five subdistricts are:
■ BD1
— Downtown Retail Core;
■ BD2
— Downtown Mixed Commercial;
■ BD3
— Downtown Convenience Commercial;
■ BD4
— Downtown Mixed Residential;
■ BD5
— Downtown Arts Corridor
11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 1 Phone 425.822.4446 1 otak.com
k: project120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 95
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Page 2 of 6
May 19, 2022
The extent of the BD2 zone is show below in Figure 1
1
1
1
1
ccd®¢
Downtown
Business a
BD1
Downtown Retail Core
BD2
Downtown Mixed Commercial
BD3
rn
Downtown Convenience Commercial
BD4
a
Downtown Mixed Residential
BD5
Downtown Arts Corridor
Historic Sites Sites on Edmonds Register of Historic Places
uRezones Contract Rezones (contractual requirements apply)
PRD PRD - Planned Residential Development
Figure 1. Excerpt from City of Edmonds Zoning Map
Allowed Uses
Permitted uses in the BD2 zone are listed in EDCD Table 18.43-1 and provided below for reference.
Permitted uses are split into three use categories, Commercial, Residential, and Other Uses. Some other
uses may require a conditional use permit. Uses that are only allowed as secondary to a permitted or
conditional use are marked with *.
Commercial Permitted Uses
■ Retail store or sales
• Offices
■ Service uses, including dining or entertainment uses
■ Automobile sales and services
■ Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as an art studio,
art gallery, restaurant, microbreweries/distilleries or food service establishment that also provides an
on -site retail outlet open to the public
■ Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeports;Vinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 96
Page 3 of 6
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum May 19, 2022
■ Printing, publishing and binding establishments
■ Public markets licensed pursuant to provisions in Chapter 4.90 ECC
Residential Permitted Uses
■ Single-family dwelling
■ Multiple dwelling unit(s)'
Other Uses Permitted
■ Bus stop shelters
• Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020
■ Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R)
■ Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted master plan subject
to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
• Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use*
■ Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone*
■ Hotels and motels
■ Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public
facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
Other Conditional Uses
■ Commercial parking lots
■ Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050
■ Amusement establishments
■ Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions
■ Drive-in/through businesses (businesses with drive through facilities)
• Laboratories
■ Day-care centers
• Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums
■ Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public
facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
■ Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for regional public facilities
as defined in ECDC 21.85.033
■ Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug abusers
■ Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.070
■ Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use*
■ Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC*
Site Development Standards
Site development standards for the BD2 zone are listed in ECDC Table 16.43-2. There are no minimum
lot area requirements and no minimum front, side, or rear setbacks. The maximum building heightz is 30
1 A Memorandum of Legislative Intent, dated April 13, 2022, clarified that the current adopted code never intended to
limit the location of multifamily housing outside of the Designated Street Front.
2 Pursuant to EDCD 21.40.030, height means the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed
soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure.
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 97
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Page 4 of 6
May 19, 2022
feet. The minimum height of the ground floor within the Designated Street Front is 12 feet3. Definitions for
the Designated Street Front and ground floor are provided below.
Designated Street Front
Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030 (B) there are special regulations for the ground floor of buildings in the BD2
zone that are located along a Designated Street Front. The locations of the Designated Street Front are
shown in blue in Figure 2 below. The Designated Street Front is defined as the 45 feet measured
perpendicular to the street front of the building lot line fronting on each of the mapped streets.
t� Designated Street Front LI__
5�
r�
�r
BELL ST
�
...
BOT N Y
DAYTO
�L=
MAPLE ST
n--F--J--l_L
ALDER s7 � � -
r --� WALNUT s
T
W LLV DR.-
7
a BE13 -.--.
HQM1{�ELL wqv
M
W
N npM4lwHP 6R � �
- x
Q
} ERBEH DR w
Figure 2. EDCD Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for BD Zone
3 Minimum height of ground floor means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces
for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front. If the ground floor is the only floor above
street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of
the roof rafters. "Floor finish" is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and
includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete.
O
E
C�
C
C
.E
O
N
N
m
0
C
W
E
U
M
Q
r
C
m
E
t
R
.r
r
a
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 98
Page 5 of 6
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum May 19, 2022
Ground Floor
Regulations for the ground floor of development in the BD2 zone are in EDCD 16.43.030.(B). The ground
floor is defined as the floor of a building which is closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width
of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is
normally the adjacent sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground "floor" is the sum of the floor
planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation to one
another.
Within the BD2, development on the ground floor along the Designated Street Front must consist only of
commercial uses. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street
front. If the first 45 feet of the building as measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial
uses and permitted secondary uses, then multiple -family residential unit(s) may be located behind the
commercial uses. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front. In all areas of the Designated
Street Front, pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is allowed as a permitted secondary use.
When a commercial use is located on the ground floor within the Designated Street Front as shown in
Figure 2, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry must be within seven inches of the grade4
level of the adjoining sidewalk. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does
not allow both the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely
within seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, the portion of the ground floor of the building
located within the designated street front may be designed to meet one of the three following conditions.
■ The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the commercial
portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven inches of the
grade level of the entry.
■ The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground floor combination is
within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
■ For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining where the ground
floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the primary entry shall be
either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary entry shall always be on
4th Avenue. Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not
comply with these access requirements.
Parking
Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030.(D), no parking is required for any permitted commercial uses located within
the BD2 zone.
Pursuant to EDCD 17.50.010.(C), all new buildings or additions in any BD zone that are not commercial
or residential uses shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 square feet of
gross floor area of building. Any portions of a building in any BD zone used exclusively for residential
uses5 must provide one parking stall per dwelling unit.
4 Grade is measured at the entry location for the development.
5 The term residential uses refer to lobbies, stairwells, elevators, storage areas and other similar features.
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 99
Edmonds Downtown Business Zone BD2 Zoning Memorandum
Page 6 of 6
May 19, 2022
Open Space
Pursuant to EDCD 16.43.030.(E), new buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or on lots that
have an overall building width of more than 120 feet must provide open space available to the public.
Open space is not required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by
more than 10 percent. A minimum of five (5) percent of the site area must be devoted to open space, the
width of the open space cannot be less than 75 percent of the depth of the open space. Open space must
be provided adjacent to the street front, must be open to the air, and can be provided as any combination
of the following
■ Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for restaurants or food
service establishments).
■ Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public.
■ Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public.
Design Standards
Development in the BD2 zone must be consistent with the design standards outlined in EDCD Chapter
22.43. The design standards provide guidance on the architectural form, ground level details, window
transparency, signage, and other street level, pedestrian oriented, details. The design regulations do not
provide any regulations that are relevant to this size, scale, or use of the structure, and have not been
summarized for the memorandum.
k:Iproject120700120793105 documentsVeportsVinal_22_0519 edmonds bd2 zoning memo.docx
Packet Pg. 100
5.1.k
B. BD2 Designated Street Front
Mr. Lien introduced the Designated Street Front recent history, ordinance history, and map revisions. With
the adoption of Interim Ordinance 4262, councilmembers voiced an interest in having commercial office to
support the retail core. Legislative history has favored pedestrian activity and commercial uses on both sides
of the street as part of the original designation. With the new regulations there must be commercial use
within the first 45 feet of designated street front; and there are minimum ground floor requirements of 12
feet in BD2 and 15 feet in BD 1 and different design standards. There are also changes to the use table which
clarify ambiguities, fills in blanks, and reference ground floor in ECDC 16.43.030.B for locational
requirements.
Mr. Lien reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Goal E, E-1 for the Downtown/Waterfront Area to provide for
a strong central retail core while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in
the surrounding area and to support a mix of uses in downtown including a variety of housing, commercial,
and cultural activities. The BD zoning purposes state that it is to provide a strong retail core at downtown's
focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the surrounding
retail core area.
Staff had wondered if Designated Street Front restrictions would inhibit market demand for residential
development, if there is a market demand for a mixed commercial building, and if there is a market demand
for solely commercial buildings. An analysis by staff of commercial shows that the commercial leasing
market appears to be stable. The multifamily rental market shows that there is short supply and high demand
for rental units. He reviewed drawings of designs of development they might see in the BD2 zone with the
Designated Street Front. The overall conclusion of the market analysis is that the risk associated with the
long absorption time for retail spaces coupled with the drastic reduction in rental residential units would
make mixed -use projects not feasible for the average boutique developer.
The interim ordinance passed by Council will expire on December 1. To make it permanent it will have to
come through the Planning Board. Some of the councilmembers want to take a broader look at the
Designated Street Front. Staff is not recommending a broader look at this time but possibly in the future in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. He noted it is possible to extend the interim ordinance
for more than six months if there is a work plan for how they are going to address it. He suggested a joint
meeting with the Economic Development Commission on this.
Discussion:
Board Member Rosen agreed that they should meet with the Economic Development Commission before
making any recommendations. He understands staff s recommendation to not take a broader look at this
time but expressed concern that the expanded area could be developed all residential before they do this. He
thinks it is prudent to consider the impacts of the "dotted blue lines". Mr. Lien agreed that they should look
at the dotted blue lines. If they want to take a bigger look at the Designated Street Front in other areas of the
city, he thinks that should be part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Board Member Rosen thanked
staff for the clarification and recommended they don't eliminate any options before meeting with the
Economic Development Commission. Chair Crank concurred.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 101
5.1.k
Board Member Gladstone asked about the ceiling requirement on the ground floor commercial (12 and 15
feet) and how that compares with residential. Mr. Lien replied that the examples showed 8 or 9 feet for
residential. Mr. Lien explained the code shows the ground floor requirement for the first floor in the BD
zone is 15 feet from the first floor to the top of the 2nd floor level and 12 feet in the BD2 zone. The taller
ceilings are desirable for commercial. Board Member Gladstone commented that desirability is subjective;
she wondered if there was a more objective reason. Board Member Cloutier commented that no one will
rent a commercial space with a low ceiling. There is a feeling of more light and more air with the higher
ceilings. When there is commercial space already on the market that is not renting, this would be building
non -usable nonrentable space. Board Member Gladstone welcomed the opportunity to do a walking tour
around how things are zoned the way they are so she could have a better grasp of the topic.
Board Member Cheung asked about councilmembers' reasoning of having commercial use because it
would support retail. Mr. Lien explained that in the BD 1 zone commercial is required on the ground floor.
He thinks the Council was interested in protecting commercial/office space outside the BD 1 core but also
having residential use downtown that supports the commercial use. Board Member Cheung recalled
councilmembers' statements quite a while ago about having more office space people would give life to
commercial as they were walking around at lunchtime but wondered if those statements were made pre-
Covid. He thought that now, when more people are working from home, it might have shifted, and the
residential might be what gives the life to commercial in the downtown area.
Vice Chair Pence expressed concern about submerging the main floor as a way to still get three floors. Since
there is some general recognition that this is not a desirable building form, can they do some tweaking to
the allowable building heights and floor -to -ceiling heights to allow developers to get a functional 3-story
building that still keeps with the desired aesthetics. Mr. Lien commented that it would only take an
additional two feet to make three floors feasible. He noted that this same discussion has occurred over the
last 50 years regarding downtown Edmonds but people are resistant to increasing building heights.
Board Member Campbell agreed with looking at raising the allowable building height in order to provide
economically feasible buildings that can have people inhabiting them. She thought that people who don't
live in the downtown core are less likely to use those businesses than people that live there because of
parking challenges.
Board Member Gladstone stated she is one of those people who has historically resisted increased building
heights, but she has always assumed they were talking about adding another 10 feet to get another floor.
This is the first time she has heard it is only two feet. She asked if there were ever renderings done to show
what it would look like if they did that. Board Member Cloutier suggested looking at meeting minutes from
2008- 2010 where renderings were made to show the difference between setbacks and cake backs. Mr. Lien
noted that building form is what they need to look at to preserve the light and openness. He commented on
some of the discussion that occurred in the past and offered to pull up the meeting minutes from way back
to give some insight into those discussions.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Lien reviewed the extended agenda and discussed a potential meeting with the Economic Development
Commission in July or August. There was consensus to try to schedule a joint meeting with the EDC at the
Planning Board's regular meeting on August 10 and have a summer break on August 24.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
June 8, 2022 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 102
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/10/2022
Public Hearing on Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone (AMD2022-
0001)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
This topic was introduced to the Planning Board on July 27.
On June 29, the Architectural Design Board reviewed the interim design standards for multifamily
buildings in the BD2 zone that were adopted by City Council on April 21, 2022 and suggested revisions
for permanent standards. (The interim standards must be replaced with permanent standards by
Council before October 21, 2022 when the interim standards will expire.) Following further discussion
on August 3, the ADB approved the draft permanent standards in Exhibit 12 and moved them to the
Planning Board for a public hearing.
Staff Recommendation
Take public comment on proposed draft permanent BD2 design standards in Exhibit 12 and make any
additional revisions. Make a recommendation on the draft standards and forward the project to the
City Council for their consideration.
Narrative
One public comment was received prior to the August 3 ADB meeting, which was not a public hearing,
but is included here as Exhibit 11.
When reviewing the proposed standards, recall that these are intended to fill a narrow gap within the
wide range of design guidance for projects in the downtown area contained in the Comprehensive Plan,
Design Guideline Checklist, and development codes in ECDC 16.43 and 22.43. Multifamily buildings can
only be developed on a relative handful of parcels at the edges of the BD2 zone which do not have the
Designated Street Front requirement. If the Designated Street Front map is redrawn to include all BD -
zoned parcels, multifamily -only buildings would no longer be possible and the proposed design
standards would be moot.
Following discussions at their June 29 and August 3 meetings, the ADB recommended changes to the
Council's interim BD2 design standards for adoption as permanent standards in ECDC 22.43.080.
1) Materials
The ADB was concerned that the interim language was too prescriptive. While use of preferred
Packet Pg. 103
7.A
materials would still be required by the draft permanent standards, flexibility is provided for project
decision makers to consider other materials if a cohesive design theme is maintained.
2) Private Amenity Space
This standard was essentially unchanged except for one revision for when balconies project into a
required R-zone setback. The projection distance was changed from 5 feet to 6 feet to allow the balcony
to be ADA compliant.
3) Roof Treatment and Modulation
The intent with this standard is to eliminate a low -slope roof covering an entire building but not to
exclude flatter areas within a roof system that could support a rooftop deck. The standards include a
menu of options allowing builders different ways to meet the requirement.
4) Roof top decks
Roof top decks are proposed to be allowed to exceed the height limit for the zone as long as several
conditions are met. The area of the roof deck would be in addition to that required by the Private
Amenity Space standards in ECDC 22.43.080.C.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1- 2022-03-29 Council Minutes
Exhibit 2 - Graphics for Interim Design Standards
Exhibit 3 - 2022-04-05 Council Minutes
Exhibit 4 - 2022-04-19 Council Minutes
Exhibit 5 - 2022-04-21 Council Minutes
Exhibit 6 - Ordinance 4256 and Interim BD2 Design Standards
Exhibit 7 - BD2 MF Design Standard Presentation to PB 7.27.22
Exhibit 8 - June 29 draft ADB meeting minutes
Exhibit 9 - July 27 draft PB minutes
Exhibit 10 - Public Notice Documentation
Exhibit 11 - Herrick comment
Exhibit 12 - ADB draft permanent BD2 design standards ECDC 22.43.080
Packet Pg. 104
7.A.a
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT,
BUCKSHNIS, L. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON VOTING NO.
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE
BD2 ZONE
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin acknowledged that, 1) there is a housing affordability
issue in Edmonds, 2) the comprehensive plan supports a variety of housing types including multifamily
development in the downtown activity center, and 3) in the interest of seeing successful multifamily
development, it is critical that there are design standards to support that. The proposed interim design
standards are intended to fill the gap for multifamily buildings in the BD2 zone. Staff welcomes council
feedback on the interim design standards.
Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed:
• Moratorium Ordinance 4247:
o "The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to draft interim zoning
regulations for the BD2 zone that would change the required setback for properties that do
not front on a Designated Street Front."
o This was NOT a comprehensive look at the BD zones or multifamily design standards
• Downtown Business Zones
Designated Street Front
o BD 1 — Retail Core
o BD2 — Mixed Commercial
o BD3 — Convenience Commercial
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 29, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 105
7.A.a
o BD4 - Mixed Residential
o BD5 - Arts Corridor
Designated Street Front (identified by blue line on above map) Standards
o Commercial and mixed -use building
0 45-foot depth of ground floor commercial
o Floor height minimums
o Transparency and access at sidewalk
o Detail at ground level
o Multifamily allowed behind 45 feet or above
BD2 parcels without Designated Street Front (on the edges of the BD2 zone, transition between
the core and typically multifamily residential or single family residential)
o Small area on Main Street, small area on 2' Avenue a few parcels up 3' and 2nd Avenues and
two parcels on Sunset.
o Two situations
1. Property is adjacent to R-zoned property, and/or
2. Property is adjacent to other BD2 property
Comprehensive Plan: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center
o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and
office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong
central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting
commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and
plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas.
■ E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial,
and cultural activities.
o Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal F. Focus development between the commercial and retail
core and the Edmonds Center for the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multi -family
residential uses
Comprehensive Plan: Downtown Design Goals and Policies
o Vehicular access and parking
o Pedestrian access and connections
o Building setbacks
o Building/site identity
o Massing
Proposed design standards
o Materials
■ Benefits
- Breaks up massing; strengthens identity
- Preferred exterior materials: stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass
- Manmade okay if made to look like preferred
- Photos of projects using more traditional building materials
o Street -side amenity space
■ Benefits
- Results in setback to the street to serve as amenity space
- Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience
- Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity
■ Plan view - Street -side Amenity Space
- 5% of lot area must be provided
- Shall be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky
- Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc.
■ Section Cut - Street Facing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 29, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 106
7.A.a
- Street -side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is
provided at the front of the building
- Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street -side amenity space
o Private amenity space
■ Benefits
- Improves livability for smaller residential units
- Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building
character, orientation and style
- Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade and increases
`eyes on the street' thereby improving safety
■ Plan View - Private Amenity Space
- 10% project area
- Balconies, decks, patios, yards
- Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use
- If with individual units, > 40 sf
- 50% of required area can be achieved with a rooftop deck
■ Section Cut - Adjacent Property
- Balconies can project 5' into setback from R-zone property
- Decks and patios 10'
Mr. Clugston explained the goal tonight, if the council is satisfied with the proposed standards, is to adopt
the ordinance in the packet as Exhibit 3 referencing Exhibit 2, the new standards that would be applied to
Chapter 23.43.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she had a problem with the BD zones having no commercial; in her
opinion adding these high density properties was ruining the downtown area because, in her opinion, the
BD2 zone was mixed commercial, not residential. The council should look at all the BD zones because
she did not understand how the downtown area, which should service small business, is suddenly
becoming more dense and apartment blocks. She questioned allowing straight up residential in a BD zone
with no mixed use at all. Ms. McLaughlin answered the code allows solely multifamily developments in
the BD2 when not adjacent to the blue lines (designated street front) on the map. It is meant to be a
transitional space, in an urban development transect, the retail commercial core allows for some
residential but predominantly active storefronts on the ground level. This area was always intended to be
a transitional zone where it will transition to residential only. The parcels on the edges of BD2 are where
that transition is occurring. She acknowledged there could be philosophical differences regarding that.
Mr. Clugston agreed the code specifically allows it. He was not employed by the City when the code was
adopted in 2006/2007, but these are transitional area on the outside edge of the BD2 zone and the feeling
was while it could be mixed use, they could also be just multifamily based on their location relative to the
BD 1 zone around the fountain.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she understood transitional zones, but she wondered how those areas of
BD2 were selected and did not go further into 6t' or further up to Bell. In her opinion, the City needed to
unwind all the BD zones; it is important to keep businesses in the downtown area thriving and not have
high density buildings. She relayed a citizen's question about whether the two lots have different setbacks
and his feeling it should not have gone to the ADB due to the lot differentiation. Mr. Clugston said prior
to adoption of the BD zones, this area was zoned community business (BC). When the different BD zones
were developed, the intent was to apply them to the types of development that were there at the time,
understanding that most of the commercial area will be around the fountain and radiating out, with
transition spaces at the furthest edges. That is what this proposal is trying to address.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 29, 2022
Page 13
Packet Pg. 107
7.A.a
Ms. McLaughlin cautioned about not getting into specifics about the project that is under review. She
clarified there is no variance proposed for that project. Mr. Clugston explained all the development codes
have to be met; the City's variance criteria are very restrictive, primarily related to parcels with
environmental constraints. Virtually nowhere else has a variance been granted in the 15 years he has been
at the City. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there are two different properties. Mr. Clugston
explained they are both zoned BD2 with the exact same development standards. The only difference is the
eastern side of the site is adjacent to multifamily residential which requires a 15' setback. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked if that 15' setback was still required. Mr. Clugston answered it was.
Councilmember Tibbott asked what the setback from the lot lines was for BD2; he understood there was
5% for the front and asked if there was a setback requirement for the side or rear. Mr. Clugston answered
there are zero setbacks from any lot line in the BD2 zone whether street, side or rear. The only setbacks
that exist for these parcels are when they are adjacent to R zoned property which requires a 15' setback.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how long that setback standard had been in effect. Mr. Clugston answered
since 2007 when the code was adopted. Councilmember Tibbott asked what it would take to extend the
blue lines. As the downtown fills up and commercial businesses thrive when there are other good, viable
strong commercial businesses around them, it seems that more commercial space would add to the
vibrancy of the downtown. It has been 15 years since those standards were adopted, it may be necessary
to extend the blue lines. Ms. McLaughlin answered that certainly should be considered in the scoping for
the comprehensive plan update. Given that the downtown activity center is such a robust commercial
retail and residential center, the City needs to analyze commercial demands, the future of retail, as well as
multifamily design standards coupled with how to meet housing needs. Mr. Clugston commented there
have been about 6-7 redevelopment projects since these codes were adopted in 2006/2007. The pace of
turnover is very small for a number of reasons. The developer could have proposed a mixed use building
for this site but chose not to, believing that residential made more sense than mixed use.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the areas on the edges of the BD2 without Designated Street Front
that have been filling in and said there may be opportunities to extend the vibrant business life. He asked
if there were any ingress/egress parking standards in BD2, and if so, what were they and what provisions
were made to go from a garage to an alley or from a parking lot to a public street. Mr. Clugston said the
code does not want access onto the main streets and to have residents use the alley as much as possible.
Buildings that do propose to use the alley need to ensure that access can occur safely. Ensuring that
access occurs in a safe manner is reviewed with every with building permit.
If a building went up to the rear lot line, Councilmember Tibbott asked if turning radius inside the
building would be required, wide enough garage doors for sight distance, etc. Mr. Clugston referred to the
post office where there is a gap in the wall from one of the drive aisles to allow drivers to see pedestrian
on the sidewalks, or sometimes mirrors are used. There are a number of different ways that can be
addressed. Councilmember Tibbott observed those standards are already in the code. Mr. Clugston agreed
they were.
Council President Olson said the overriding reason for standards is to protect other properties in the area,
other homeowners in the area and the community as a whole. She thanked staff for this proposal which
addressed something that was lacking and what they have brought forward makes a difference and will
help with projects that fall into this gap. However, two significant things were not addressed that she
hoped could be addressed, first the issue of accommodating loading/unloading on the property. This is 24
units that will have regular turnover, whether it is the tenants moving in and out or having furniture or
appliances delivered. She was concerned with a building accommodating 24 families not designating an
area for deliveries and felt it should be addressed in the code or be a design requirement. The loading
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 29, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 108
7.A.a
zone could be the setback and provide additional space for people entering/exiting their garages from the
alley.
Ms. McLaughlin expressed concern that Council President Olson's question was very project related. She
offered to speak in theory but not to the project itself as the proposed standards are applicable to all
parcels in the BD2 zone. Council President Olson pushed back on that assertion, pointing out any
buildings without setbacks on the alley would be in the same situation. Ms. Laughlin said there are
temporary right-of-way permits for loading for this reason. There will be episodic loading needs in any
urban environment, particularly for moving in/out of buildings. A requirement to accommodate a WB-67
moving truck would deem parking structures infeasible due to turning movements. Staff could look at
what that would require and how much space it would take out of the programmatic area, requiring the
developer to compensate in other aspects of the project to make that program work. The nature of an alley
is that it is slightly utilitarian. Requiring a 25' width to allow a truck to unload would be a significant
amount of space in the alley, pushing the alley to 44' wide.
Council President Olson commented it would not increase the alley width, it would be on the property
and made available for loading/unloading which can be expected to occur with some regularity. Ms.
McLaughlin said that would need to be dimensioned out. The reason why that is not seen in any other city
is because the curb space or alleys themselves are typically used for loading/unloading and moving.
Council President Olson referred to the use of "urban" and pushed back, saying Edmonds is a suburban
and not an urban environment and she hoped that was part of the planning. Use of the alley for
ingress/egress to garages has been encouraged, and loading/unloading from the alley could block access
which would have a huge impact. She was trying to assess if it was an option to require some setback
from the alley. Ms. McLaughlin asked if her question was how to accommodate moving trucks onsite.
Council President Olson answered it was related to moving trucks or delivery trucks. Ms. McLaughlin
said the engineering/permitting team could answer that question better than she could and offered to
provide further information.
Council President Olson said her other issue was consolidating parcels, which is not mandated, and
should be an opportunity for the City to get a concession that supports the comprehensive plan. The
comprehensive plan says the City cares about light and not having huge, blocky structures, but this
building on a slope which the building height assessed at that level, the center point would be in a
different place on one of the parcels versus the consolidated parcel. Consolidating parcels has a negative
impact in terms of light. When that is allowed, there should be a requirement for a step down or
modulation in the roof line to provide breaks of light to everything around it. That should be required
because the parcels are being consolidated and they are not currently allowed to be built on in that
manner. If the lots were developed without consolidating them, there would be breaks between the
buildings due to required setbacks.
Ms. McLaughlin said State law exempts lot combinations from the subdivision law, essentially
streamlining lot combination which is intended to ensure it is not a hinderance to meeting density goals.
The City does have some discretion to ensure any lot combination meets the objectives within the
comprehensive plan. Mr. Clugston explained there is no required setback between the parcels, if they are
both zoned BD, they can be built wall to wall. The only time a setback is required is if it is adjacent to a
residentially residential zoned parcel. As an example, he referred to a clump of parcels south of Main
between 6'1i and Durbin where, in theory, one person could buy the approximately 8 parcels and construct
one building on it. At the northeast corner of 6' & Main, one person could buy three parcels, combine
them and develop one project on the site. Lot consolidation for projects happens all the time; if someone
owns all the parcels, they can be combined and a larger project developed on it. That would also apply to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 29, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 109
7.A.a
parcels on Yd and there are no setbacks between the parcels because they are not adjacent to an R zoned
property. Even if one person did not own all the parcels, each property could be developed wall to wall.
Mr. Clugston continued, the intent of the design standards is when there are two adjacent BD2 parcels
that could have multifamily, private amenity space needs to be provided. One of the ways to do that is
either move the building back to provide a balcony that projects out or create a balcony that is recessed
into the building; either way provides some modulation. There are other ways to achieve that standard
such as a rooftop desk. When there are no setbacks, buildings can be constructed right to the property line
and that is the case with the overwhelming majority of the parcels in the BD zones.
Council President Olson said that explanation clarified it for her. She asked if the City just got lucky with
the architectural design of the first two parcels at 6th & Main that follow the slope. That makes a big
difference and she was unsure if that occurred because the developer chose to be nice and cared about
making the community look good, or if the City had it in code. Mr. Clugston said he was not familiar with
the location Council President Olson was referencing. Council President Olson referred to the buildings
on the north side of the street at 6t' & Main, the two largest parcels on the northwest corner of the
intersection. Mr. Clugston answered those were zoned multifamily, not B132, and were built a number of
years ago so he did not know what the code requirement was for height measurement at that time.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked for a description of public amenity space. Mr. Clugston displayed the
plan view, explaining the street -side amenity space has to be 5% of the lot area and must be provided
between the building and the sidewalk, be open to the sky and must include landscaping, seating, art, or
similar elements. He displayed the section view, identifying the street -side amenity space, the space
between the sidewalk and the building front that acts like a setback that is activated through uses.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the map that illustrates the areas with and without designated
street fronts, recalling Mr. Clugston's comment that the areas on the edges of B132 without designated
street fronts were transitional areas. Mr. Clugston referred to the intersection of Main & 5t'', and the
parcels radiating away from that, the BD 1 zone, the retail core. Just outside of that on all sides is the B132
zone, adjacent to the retail core and in some instances does not extend very far but in some areas it does.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked what PRD 2002-102 means. Mr. Clugston answered it was a Planned
Residential Development for single family development. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if
loading/unloading spaces were required for any other residential type. Mr. Clugston answered not to his
knowledge.
Councilmember Chen said he had two questions, first, as the City grows, would the BD 1 zone need to be
expanded into the BD2 zone. Ms. Mclaughlin said that is something that the needs analysis as part of the
comprehensive plan update will consider, what are the City's commercial and retail demands and where
should they be located, looking at the City and its activity centers as a whole, including the medical
center, downtown and waterfront. She looked forward to doing a needs analysis and engaging the council
in those discussions. Edmonds is unique in the sense that all the retail spaces are occupied which is a great
sign. It was unclear where there was pent up demand; that will require some retail analysis.
Councilmember Chen said his second question was whether the interim code only applied to residential or
if it applied to both residential and mixed use, noting the current code allows both residential and mixed
use. Mr. Clugston said there are existing design standards that apply to mixed use or commercial/office
projects. This proposal would apply only to standalone multifamily buildings. Because this is residential
only, the same amount of design analysis has not been done which is why these standards have been
proposed. Ms. McLaughlin said that is the unanticipated gap; the intent is to fill that gap with these
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 29, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 110
7.A.a
interim design standards specifically for multifamily. Staff is also working on multifamily design
standards that would apply citywide.
Councilmember Chen suggested the recommendations from the Citizen Housing Commission (CHC) be
revisited and incorporated. Ms. McLaughlin agreed some of the CHC's recommendations were applicable
to multifamily design standards and others will be applicable to the comprehensive plan update.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she still has an issue with not being project specific when it was dealing
with a project. This will be displacing 7-8 businesses, some of them women -owned, in the downtown
business district. Acknowledging the council cannot consider project specifics, she asked if traffic,
stormwater, or sewer impacts had been considered. As this will be a dense project with 24 - 48 extra cars,
she asked if a traffic study had been done. She referred to the aging infrastructure, recalling a sewer break
on 5' Avenue in the past. Ms. McLaughlin assured that was part of the permitting process which looks at
everything that Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned including the need for traffic analysis, stormwater,
existing utilities, what it can support and whether there is capacity. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the
timeframe for the citywide multifamily design standards. Ms. McLaughlin answered the senior planner
that was leading the effort left the City. Recruitment is underway for that position and it may be expedited
by moving to a consultant process; those options are being analyzed.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled discussions at the Economic Development Commission about light
and buildings next to each other and interest in setbacks. She recalled there were setbacks in Westgate and
asked why no setbacks were being enforced to allow for light for adjacent buildings so they did not just
look out on a wall. Ms. McLaughlin answered defining light and air can be fairly subjective. There could
be a lighting/shadow study done on projects which was something she recommended. Oftentimes when
there is an alley or street, particularly when the street is up to 25' wide, the light and air issue is mitigated
by having that space in between buildings. Looking at historic downtowns within a tight urban fabric, the
buildings are adjacent to each other like in Edmonds downtown core; the street provides light, air and
separation. The same is seen in the development that is currently under review. Councilmember
Buckshnis said there is plenty of density in the downtown area. Her issue is changing the mix of the BD
zone, and making it more residential. She was aware it was allowed because it was not identified as a
designated street front but she was still concerned that mixed use was not required.
Council President Olson said this question was already answered but she wanted to be sure staff
understood the question the way she intended; staff was saying no other condos or apartments were
required to provide loading/unloading even if there is no parking lot associated with the complex. Ms.
McLaughlin said in talking with Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien today about this issue, the
only one he could recall was a project that requested a loading zone.
Council President Olson said this comment was not related to the specific item but for all planning going
forward, especially in downtown areas, when the building follows the slope like it does between 5t' & 6t'
on the north side of Main, it is great and charming and although there are no setbacks on the side, it is so
cute. She hoped that could be implemented in more places and made a priority in planning going forward.
Councilmember Chen commented in terms of timing, the moratorium is expiring so there is some
urgency. Ms. McLaughlin said in the interest of lifting the moratorium, given the magnitude of a
moratorium on development and market dynamics, a public hearing on the moratorium is scheduled on
April 5t''. These interim design standards will be returned to council on April 5t'; staff s recommendation
is that the interim design standards be adopted and the moratorium would then be lifted on April 5tn
With regard to the effective date of the proposed ordinance, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained as
currently drafted, it would not take immediate effect. Assuming it is adopted on April 5t'', it would not
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 29, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 111
7.A.a
take effect until April 15'. The ordinance could be drafted to take immediate effect, but it would require a
majority plus one vote to pass.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if there was any risk with continuing with the current proposed
timeline of a public hearing on April 5' and adoption of the interim design standards on April 5'. Mr.
Taraday answered by his calculation if the ordinance is adopted on April 5" without an emergency clause,
it would take effect on April 15th. City Clerk Scott Passey advised it would take effect on April 13'. Mr.
Taraday said that was before the moratorium expired. Councilmember L. Johnson observed adding an
emergency clause would allow the ordinance to take effect sooner if there was some benefit to that. Mr.
Taraday agreed.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the benefit of have more than 5% public open space and what the
timing would be to incorporate that change into the proposed ordinance. Mr. Clugston answered given the
short amount of time, it would be easier to stick with this proposal. That could be considered in the
permanent multifamily design standards. Councilmember K. Johnson requested staff put that on the list of
things to look at in the permanent standards.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the setback standards for RM-1 weren't used such as in the BD4
zone. She recognized this was a transition zone and the intent is a standalone multifamily property. Mr.
Clugston explained BD2 is mixed commercial adjacent to BD1. He displayed a map identifying the BD4
zone, downtown mixed residential, which is located in the southwest area of downtown and off by itself.
In BD4, if a project is mixed use, there are no setbacks; if it is multifamily only, then RM-1.5 setbacks
apply. The three sites that the DB4 zone covers are large, developed sites that were developed without
designated street front standards. The RM setbacks are not appropriate for the BD2 zoned parcels which
do not have side setbacks unless adjacent to residential which has a 15' setback requirement.
With regard to adding an emergency clause to the ordinance, Council President Olson said if the effective
date of the ordinance fit within the moratorium period without an emergency clause, how would an
emergency be justified? Mr. Taraday said that was a good question; he did not want to rule out the
possibility that an emergency declaration could be drafted that would be valid, but Council President
Olson was correct that the ordinance would need to state the basis for taking emergency action. That basis
is usually left to the discretion of the legislative body. If council or staff suggested a basis for an
emergency, he would not eliminate that possibility, but she was correct that expiration of the moratorium
was one basis that probably wouldn't satisfy the emergency clause.
3. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20.03 ECDC RELATED TO ADDRESSES FOR
USE IN MAILED NOTICE
Council President Olson explained the reason for notices is to make citizens and other stakeholders aware
when there is a project that might influence their interests. The City has been made aware that notices are
not always getting to the right people. The intent of this item is to determine how to change the code to
resolve that via a code update. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this ordinance was requested by the
council president. He tried to correct something that had been brought to her attention, that there are two
different types of owner addresses held by Snohomish County, the taxpayer address and the owner
address. Most often those addresses are the same, but it is possible for a property owner to contact the
county and ask that tax statements be sent to a different address such as when someone owns property in
the City but does not reside at the property and wants to receive mail elsewhere. The question is how to
best provide notice to the public, in this case about development projects but it could be posed even more
broadly.
Mr. Taraday continued, because he did not involve City staff early enough, some issues were raised late
in the game as this was going into the packet that have not yet been resolved. One such issue is that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
March 29, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 112
30 ft. max.
12 ft. min.
SECTION CUT - STREET -FACING
O
T /
l7ICVJJ LV I
AREA
7.A.b
PLAN VIEW - STREET -SIDE AMENITY SPACE
�I
Oam
ml
rl _
m ' D
10 ft
max.
GROUND FLOOR - �I
PRIVATE
AMENITY SPACE
A
D
I
5 ft. min. 15 ft. min.
setback setback
PLAN VIEW - PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE
RS-6
ROW LINE
b FT. MIN. FENCE
SCREENING
PATIO
loft.
max.
5 ft. min. 15 ft. min.
setback setback
7.A.b
E
3
L
0
W
L
Cu
50% MAX Of
A
r
AMENITY SR
AS ROOFTOI
a�
PRIVATE
r
AMENITY SF
5
= 40 SQ. FT.
a q.
E
L
.
a
cn
0
p
G
=
D<
'L
0
�
0
2
V
s
O
p
3
a
L
M
_
w+
_
a�
0
E
'L
d
L
0
c,>
t
Q
L
�J
N
r.+
L
K
W
4-:
30 ft. max.
12 ft. min.
SECTION CUT - ADJACENT PROPERTY
70
I0
7.A.b
7.A.c
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was to extend the moratorium to Tuesday, April 19t' or
Thursday, April 215t. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance states April 21'. He did that intentionally not
knowing what may be on the April 19t1' agenda, and he wanted to provide additional time in the event the
council needed to adjourn meeting to another night that week to finish its business.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE
BD2 ZONE
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating this should not have been as part of
the agenda due to extending the moratorium. Mayor Pro Tern Olson said it was relevant because the
council may want to give input to staff for further work in order to move quickly past moratorium. Mr.
Taraday agreed from a parliamentary standpoint, it was not out of order. It is on the agenda and with only
a short extension of the moratorium, it would be helpful for staff to receive feedback from the council
sooner rather than later. Mayor Pro Tern Olson suggested limiting the discussion to feedback regarding
how it could be improved.
Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to provide last week's PPT again or just proceed to council
discussion/questions.
Councilmember L. Johnson said given the information the council heard earlier, it would be beneficial to
have a shortened presentation.
Mr. Clugston reviewed Interim Design Standards of Stand-alone multifamily building in BD2 zone,
explaining the intent of the interim design standards was to apply them to the parcels on the edge of the
BD2 zone outlined in red on the map that do not have a designated street front:
!• Designated Street Front* -
v
h�3 9T EY Sz DALEY ]ST
802
ST
BELL ST
aoa
❑nrro
802
eoi I
L
x
T
MAPLE ST
ry
ALDER Si
4
a
r�
A -
^
ALDER 5T
E rT
WALNUT gY
WALNUT S
i
t
80,
Nd LL WAY
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 5, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 117
7.A.c
Standards are intended to apply to two situations
1. Property is adjacent to R-zoned property, and/or
2. Property is adjacent to other BD2 property
Proposed design standards
o Materials
■ Benefits
- Breaks up massing; strengthens identity
- Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass
- Manmade okay if made to look like preferred
- Photos of projects using more traditional building materials
o Street -side amenity space
■ Benefits
- Results in setback to the street to serve as amenity space
- Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience
- Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity
■ Plan view - Street -side Amenity Space
- 5% of lot area must be provided
- Shall be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky
- Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc.
■ Section Cut - Street Facing
- Street -side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is
provided at the front of the building
- Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street -side amenity area
o Private amenity space
■ Benefits
- Improves livability for smaller residential units
- Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building
character, orientation and style
- Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade and increases
`eyes on the street' thereby improving safety
■ Plan View - Private Amenity Space
- 10% project area
- Balconies, decks, patios, yards
- Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use
- If with individual units, > 40 sf
- 50% of required area can be achieved with a roof top deck
■ Section Cut - Adjacent Property
- Balconies can project 5' into setback from R-zone property
- Decks and patios 10'
Councilmember Paine said she did not have any trouble with most of the interim design standards, but
wanted to understand the impact of removing CA, "A maximum of 50% of the required private amenity
space may be provided as roof top deck. Deck railings may...". Mr. Clugston answered it would limit the
ability of designers to provide private amenity space. They could probably do it in other ways such as a
recessed balcony. The intent is to use the roof top as a gathering space for residents. Similar features are
allowed to exceed the height in all zones such as elevator penthouses, chimneys, etc. This is an example
of what could be on a roof top in a dense downtown area.
Councilmember Paine said amenity space that was not on the roof would provide articulation and
modulation on the building sides so it wasn't a giant mass and such a square. Grooves provide sightlines,
a square does not. Having a roof top deck seems to shift that visual so it is not really community friendly.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 5, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 118
7.A.c
Mr. Clugston said that is an option; other zones in Edmonds such as the General Commercial and
Westgate Mixed Use allow roof top decks. Councilmember Paine said she was open to considering it in
the multifamily design standards that will have a public process, but preferred to have the standards be
tighter now and be more generous when there was a public process.
Ms. McLaughlin said she could understand what Councilmember Paine was saying about having it be
part of the required private amenity space and asked if she would be opposed to allowing roof top amenity
space after they had met their standards. For instance, if the developer already met their private amenity
space per the interim design standards and chose to do a roof top deck, would that be allowed.
Councilmember Paine said she do not know how she felt about that, she has the square in her head. Ms.
McLaughlin said that would be solved via the private amenity space; it was her understanding
Councilmember Paine did not want the roof top deck to count toward that because she wanted further
articulation. She could see that point of view but wanted to clear whether the desire was to prohibit roof
top decks. Councilmember Paine said visual examples would be helpful. She hoped to avoid a block with
people partying on top of the building.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with idea of maintaining the private amenity space and once that has
been met, whether there is a roof top deck is inconsequential to the design standard.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis agreed with Councilmembers Paine and K. Johnson. She did not
want people hanging out on decks, hanging over and looking and waving at people down on Main Street.
There is nothing in the code that says decks on a roof top are considered open space. She wanted to be
conscientious of that and not turn into Seattle where people hang out on decks waving at everybody
walking by. She referred to a statement last week that a traffic analysis had been done, but now staff
indicates no traffic analysis had been done and that it would come later. Ms. McLaughlin said at the last
council meeting there was a question regarding the project development process for this particular project,
specifically what types of studies are requested during project review and a traffic study was one of the
questions. Traffic is typically evaluated in any project; in this project, which is not the subject of tonight's
review, the traffic analysis yielded less than 25 PM peak hour trips. When a preliminary traffic analysis
results in less than 25 PM peak hour trips, a full traffic study is not required because the impacts per hour
on the street network are negligible.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis questioned 25 peak hour trips with the addition of at least 24 cars.
Ms. McLaughlin answered international transportation engineering guidelines guide trip generation
analysis. Public Works leads this process and the engineering team can provide more detail. It is a very
standardized methodology for determining peak hour trips in different types of land use.
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis referred to Ordinance 3918 which is very explanatory about the
design standards in BD zones but doesn't say anything about roof top decks. Mr. Clugston said he would
need to look at the code and report back. Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis asked if staff had spoken
to the developer regarding mixed use versus fully residential since it is in a BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston
answered this is a discussion on interim design standards for buildings in the BD2 zone.
Councilmember Chen referred to an area outlined in red south of Main and east of 6t' on the map of
designated street fronts and areas without designated street fronts. He asked if the Bellmont Building at
600 Bell was in the BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston answered that is in a multifamily zone.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked about the design standards and allowances for roof top decks or if the
interim standards were allowing something that did not currently exist. She preferred to have that go
through the more lengthy process with the overall multifamily design standards. She was concerned with
adding something like that through these interim design standards if it did not already exist.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 5, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 119
7.A.c
Councilmember Tibbott said he was interested in the purpose of transition zones. There are very intensive
uses in BD1, less intensive uses in BD3 and BD2 seems to be somewhat of a transition between those
two. He asked the purpose of a transition zone and what the difference would be between mixed use and a
mix of uses in BD2. Ms. McLaughlin answered the term transition zone is something that has used in
staff s presentations. As the public mentioned, it is not found in the zoning code. In her professional
judgment, transitional zones are meant to taper out the intensity of a mix of uses that are often found in a
downtown core. It affords a larger variety for developers to choose from with regard to market demand.
There is a typology that is more suited to a higher density retail core for in downtown core for mixed use
buildings. With regard to a mix of uses, tapering away from the retail core, it allows for a variety of uses
that still support, as stated in the comprehensive plan, the intensity that happens in the core and supports
the retail and commercial uses by providing residences and other uses that help keep that space lively and
vibrant.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the photographs on packet page 107 of the North Sound Center and
the post office building that have modulation and articulation in the rooflines and the sides. He asked staff
to address how the articulation and design features help with good design for the City. Mr. Clugston said
these buildings illustrate human scale. The lower buildings on Main Street are only 15' tall so they
definitely have human scale but the Starbucks building on the corner and the post office buildings are
definitely not monolithic blocks, they have elements that provide modulation, different eaves, etc. The
Graphite building also has a lot going on and even on the North Sound building, there is modulation using
colors, materials and windows to create human scale.
Councilmember Tibbott said the proposed interim design standards for BD2 would be in line with this
kind of modulation and natural materials and would help tie all the BD zones to downtown. Mr. Clugston
agreed that was the intent. Ms. McLaughlin advised the proposed interim design standards would be used
in combination with the existing design standards that talk about mimicking historic patterns, human
scale, etc. and would not be used in isolation. The whole package of applicable design standards are in the
council packet.
Mayor Pro Tem Olson said if a roof top deck was included, she agreed it should be recessed from the
edge so people could not look into windows on surrounding buildings, that was good input from the
architect during the public hearing. She will listen to that public comment again to ensure she considered
everything that was mentioned. She encouraged staff to consider that comment and other comments from
the public. If councilmembers objected to the idea of a roof top deck, she suggested perhaps it could be
allowed with a conditional use permit so the surrounding residents could weigh in.
Councilmember Tibbott said it was clear from the council's discussion that clearer design standards were
needed for a roof top deck. He asked what happened if a design was proposed that did not meet the design
standards. Mr. Clugston said the developer would be sent back to the drawing board. Councilmember
Tibbott asked if the proposal would be denied. Mr. Clugston said when staff or the ADB is reviewing a
project, the goal is not to deny but to get them to something that is code compliant that also meets the
design guidance in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Tibbott summarized they would need to
meet the design standards before it was approved for construction. Mr. Clugston answered yes, or before
it was conditionally approved.
2. 2022 PROS PLAN DRAFT REVISION PROPOSAL
Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director Angie Feser said the final draft PROS Plan
is currently under council consideration for approval. After robust public engagement and considerable
public comment since the January 7t' draft release, the plan is in its last stage of council review and
revision. Usually in this phase council has the option of approving the final draft as recommended by the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 5, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 120
7.A.d
3. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE
BD2 ZONE (previously Item 8.2)
Senior Planner Mike Clugston provided an update on the status of the design standards for multifamily
only buildings in BD2. Since the April 5' meeting where there were comments on several of the design
standards, staff took the standards to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who were generally in favor
of the proposed language with a couple of tweaks. Staff s recommend is to approve the interim design
standards in Exhibit 2 via the ordinance in Exhibit 3. With regard to materials, which was one of the
design standards, no change was recommended; the ADB and the public seemed to like the concept of
materials used on these types of buildings. Similarly, for the street side amenity space, the concept that
provides a setback was well received and no changes are proposed.
Mr. Clugston continued, there were no concerns with the private amenity space generally, but there was
some concern with roof top decks. As a result a small change was proposed to the roof top deck areas as
outlined in the packet. Previously a roof top deck would be allowed to fulfill the amenity space
requirement; that was changed to say it could not be used to fulfill the amenity space requirement, but
could be provided. Another question raised was whether roof top decks should be allowed to the edge of
the roof; the building code allows railings at the edge. There was some concern from the council, public
and the ADB who felt some setback of the railing would be useful for safety and proposed a 5-foot
setback as a starting point. He recalled a setback for the railing was also suggested by a member of the
public at the April 5' meeting.
Mr. Clugston continued, another question was raised about whether the roof top deck should be counted
toward the private amenity space requirement. There was some concern that a developer would put all the
50% amenity space on the roof, thereby depriving some individual residences of balconies, decks and
patios. The revised language changes the ability to use the roof top deck to meet the amenity space
requirement; a roof top deck is still allowed, but all the private amenity space has to be provided with
individual units or at the ground level meeting the existing standards in the proposed language. He
summarized with the feedback from council, the ADB and the public, the design standards are generally
pretty good and would result in improved projects in multifamily only buildings in BD2.
Council President Olson said she not sure she was against the idea of a roof top deck but was not sure she
was ready to say they absolutely should be allowed. Her concern was with building heights, a cultural
value in Edmonds. When building heights were increased 5 feet at one point, the idea wasn't to allow
increased levels of living units, but to allow for some roof modulation or slope so the roofs were not all
flat because that is not a great design in the Pacific Northwest. Things can be placed on a roof top deck,
even if they aren't permanent, such as umbrellas and furniture. If part of the desire to keep building
heights at a certain level is to be respectful of views due to the slope throughout the lower level of
Edmonds, she had an issue with roof top decks in the context of the community value of avoiding
increasing building heights due the impact on views. She summarized she was uncertain she was ready to
allow roof top decks as an amenity.
Mr. Clugston responded a number of exceptions to the height are allowed such as an architectural feature
that can cover 5% of the roof area on a BD building, elevator penthouses, solar panels, etc. He
summarized the height limit such as 30 feet is not an absolute drop dead maximum as things can project
above it. Using that information, staff determined roof top decks fit with that concept particularly if the
railings are transparent and there are no permanent structures on the roof top.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 121
7.A.d
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin said staff is not wed to the concept of roof top decks
as part of the interim design standards. The most recent revision excludes roof top decks from the
required private amenity space and they are happy to exclude roof top deck from the interim design
standards. The multifamily design standards are a 2022 work plan item which will provide more time to
delve into it. The focus of the interim design standards is setback, articulation, and more green space on
multifamily buildings.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure if she was in favor of roof top decks; Edmonds is not
Seattle and Seattle has a lot of them. She might be interested if they were recessed further than five feet.
She recalled complaints the City received about the visibility of a tent on a business's roof for a long
period of time due the slope. She supported having more research done because Edmonds is unique and
she anticipated roof top patios could get out of hand. There are rooftop patios in many large cities and she
was not sure Edmonds was large enough for that yet.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE REVISED INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXHIBIT 2 AND ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 3.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the third time the council has worked on this and the issues
that were raised last week have been addressed. Staff came forward with what the council requested and
further amendments can be made.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY REMOVING THE ROOF TOP PORTION AS IT IS
WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the product as amended, noting there is an opportunity for
greater review by the public and another public process. This is a good interim proposal and it was her
understanding the process would take about nine months which would allow for a good public process.
A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO AMEND TO
CHANGE THE CURRENT SECTION D OF 22.43.080 TO E AND ADD A NEW SECTION D
THAT READS, SOME ROOF MODULATION IS REQUIRED WITH PREFERENCE FOR STEP
DOWNS THAT FOLLOW THE SLOPE WHEN SLOPE EXISTS.
Council President Olson said that was one of the features she notices and likes when she is downtown and
prefers to see. The history of allowing an additional 5 feet in height was to allow slope on roofs or
modulation so buildings were not square boxes and were a more attractive design. She recognized these
were interim design standards, but some projects will vest under these interim design standards.
Councilmember Paine asked how much slope modulation there was in other parts of Edmonds. She was
concerned this would be disparate if it was only required in one of the business districts, noting it was not
required for single family residences. She asked if any other zoning districts in the City required
modulation on the slope.
Council President Olson offered a point of clarification, that was not the amendment. Her motion was
some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists,
it would not be a mandate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 122
7.A.d
Councilmember Paine said she was still curious about the answer to her question, whether this existed in
any other zones. Mr. Clugston answered in the RM zones the base height maximum was 25 feet and an
additional 5 feet was allowed with a roof pitch of 4:12 or greater. That was also permitted in BC zones.
Councilmember Chen asked if there were any buildings in the City that had roof top amenities. Mr.
Clugston answered roof top decks were allowed in other zones but the only one he was aware of was the
new building at Westgate. Councilmember Chen said that could be a wonderful feature with enough
setback. He supported respecting people's privacy by having enough distance from the edge of building
so that people were looking at the water and mountain views and not into other people's windows.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND WITH REGARD TO GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTS, TO EXTEND THE STREET
FRONT TO THE ABUTTING CORNERS AROUND THE INTERSECTION TO INCLUDE
STREET FRONTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXTEND WHERE
THERE IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
THERE ARE THREE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IT IS EXTENDED TO ALL FOUR
CORNERS AND FOUR PLACES WHERE IT IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE MAIN AND 6TH, IT
STOPS RIGHT AT 6TH AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER CORNERS THAT DO NOT HAVE
STREET FRONT AND THREE OTHER PLACES THAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was to have that brought back or have an ordinance drafted tonight that
would accomplish that. Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to asking Mr. Taraday to bring and
ordinance back to council for review. Mr. Taraday said he would need to work with planning staff on that;
that type of an amendment would be difficult to adopt tonight. If the intent is to have that in place before
lifting the moratorium, the moratorium would need to be extended. The complexity involved with a map
amendment of that nature would be difficult to do at 10:15 p.m. without long extensions of the meeting. If
the council extended the moratorium for a month, it would give him time work with the planning division
to bring back an ordinance that would accomplish that. If that was the case, there would need to be other
amendments made to the ordinance currently before the council such removing language in Section 2 that
lifts the moratorium.
Council President Olson asked if the council was otherwise satisfied with the design standards, could the
section about the moratorium be struck while staff is figuring out the designated street front. Mr. Taraday
answered the council has options, 1) adopt the design standards as just amended and lift the moratorium,
or 2) adopt the design standards as just amended and keep the moratorium in place. Adopting the design
standards and keeping the moratorium in place will require two separate ordinances. As he was not
certain how the discussion/vote would go, as a precaution, he prepared an ordinance to extend the
moratorium for a month so it was ready if the council needed it. If council wants to adopt the design
standards as amended and keep moratorium in place, a motion would need to be made to approve the
version of the ordinance that he sent the council by email this afternoon that contains immediate effect
language, not the packet version of the ordinance. Section 2 of that ordinance which repeals the
moratorium would need to be deleted. He summarized if the council likes the design standards as
amended and does not want to repeal the moratorium, that could be accomplished by deleting Section 2 of
the ordinance he sent council this afternoon.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 123
7.A.d
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
ACCEPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS AMENDED TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE
REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE SENT THIS AFTERNOON BY EMAIL WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF DELETING SECTION 2 THAT LIFTS THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed there was an motion on the floor to approve the ordinance in the
packet. Mr. Taraday agreed the ordinance was moved originally and assumed the version of the ordinance
was the one he sent this afternoon. Councilmember L. Johnson said her motion was to approve the
ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday clarified the packet version will not take effect prior to the
expiration of the moratorium. A version of the ordinance needs to be adopted which takes effect
immediately which is why he sent out a revised version this afternoon. The revised version does not
change any of the substance of the design standards, it is contains a declaration of emergency and has an
immediate effect clause. He asked whether the maker of the motion was okay substituting that version for
the version in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was unable to give that at this point
without reading what was emailed.
Mayor Nelson observed there was already a motion on the floor and this is another motion. He suggested
addressing the main motion.
Council President Olson began to make an amendment, to have Section 2 deleted that lifts the
moratorium. She asked if the emergency clause could be removed if the moratorium was not lifted. Mr.
Taraday said if the council wanted to prevent developments vesting to the preexisting standards, the
ordinance needs to take effect immediately. The packet version does not take effect immediately; the
council would need to adopt the version he sent this afternoon in order for it to take effect immediately.
He offered to highlight the change to the ordinance in the packet.
Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the version Mr. Taraday sent this afternoon does not lift the
moratorium, it allows the design standards to take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday answered it does both;
the council probably will want the design standards to take immediate effect either way unless a separate
ordinance is adopted that extends the moratorium. If a separate ordinance is adopted to extend the
moratorium, then the design standards ordinance does not need to be an emergency.
The motion was clarified as follows:
Councilmember L. Johnson was open to changing the motion to include what was emailed to the
council now that she had had a chance to look at it, provided that that lifts the moratorium. The
seconder, Councilmember Paine agreed as long as it lifted the moratorium.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to see all of this in writing and give citizens an
opportunity to participate. She was concerned that at 10:25 p.m., the council was attempting to approve
something that was sent this afternoon and then making amendments to it. She preferred to have the
ordinance in the packet. She did not support the motion but wanted to have the moratorium extended so
this could be fixed and everyone could see it in writing in the packet. She asked what needed to be done
to make that happen. Mr. Taraday said the council would want to adopt the other ordinance he emailed
this evening, not the afternoon one, that extends the moratorium for a month.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the council would have to wait to do that until the motion the floor
was addressed. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion as she
believed there needed to be a public process, the public had not read the ordinance and she had only read
it quickly.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 124
7.A.d
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ONE MONTH.
Council President Olson observed there was an ordinance that does that. She offered to read the
ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking where this was on the agenda. Council
President Olson answered this was one of the things the council can do. Councilmember L. Johnson said
the council tabled this item.
Mr. Taraday explained the motion to adopt the ordinance that adopts the interim design standards was
tabled. If the council wants to take alternative action regarding the moratorium, it can do so, it can amend
agenda, etc. A majority of the council can do whatever it wants during a regular meeting. Councilmember
L. Johnson observed it was not on the existing agenda.
Council President Olson asked if it was the council's desire to take vote to add this to the agenda or could
it be done via a head nod. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council did not take action via head
nods.
Council President Olson restated her motion:
TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND EXTEND THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember Paine said adding this to the agenda at 10:26 p.m. was a rather thin nail to hang the
transparency hat on.
Councilmember Chen said the council needs more time and cannot vote on something that was sent in the
afternoon. He did not support the motion.
Council President Olson offered to withdraw the motion and plan a special meeting on Thursday.
Councilmember Chen said that would be more appropriate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she like to take this vote tonight and did not want to have a special
meeting on Thursday for this one item. It is part and parcel of what the council has discussed tonight
related to adopting a resolution to adopt the findings in support of the BD2 moratorium. The motion
would be to extend moratorium and she favored taking that action tonight.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON
AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE
MORATORIUM OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2
ZONE LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY
ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE 4253.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 125
7.A.d
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was following through on what Councilmember K. Johnson said.
There is a moratorium in place, this is the formal action to extend it for one month. If the council does not
take this action, the moratorium will expire on Thursday and she did not think the city attorney and staff
would have the necessary materials completed in time for a continued meeting on Thursday. She
preferred to either approve extending the moratorium and if not, it will end on April 21 and the interim
building standards will take effect. This will give time to do what needs to be done in terms of getting
packet materials done and extending the moratorium.
Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the motion. She found it interesting that the council just
tabled something based on being unable to review something that was received at 5:00 p.m., yet would
vote on a document that was received during the council meeting which she has not had an opportunity to
review.
Councilmember Paine preferred to come back on Thursday. There is a chance to have enough public
process to get through the tail end of the moratorium. Moratoriums are damaging to the City's reputation
and progress on building, things that are normally allowed. She felt it was shortsighted and that the
council would not get that much more information about what the business practices need to look like
within a month as that is a much bigger study.
Councilmember Chen agreed that the council needs to come back on Thursday. It is late at night and all of
a sudden the council wants to pass a motion to extend the moratorium. He was not comfortable
supporting that.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday explained a 4-3 vote adopts the ordinance, but does not take immediate effect with a 4-3 vote
and will take effective 5 days after passage and publication. If the council does not meet on Thursday to
take some other action, the moratorium will end at the close of business on Thursday and on Friday a
developer theoretically could vest an application pursuant to the prior development standards. If the
ordinance takes effect five business day after publication, next Wednesday, that leaves four business days,
Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a developer to vest an application. The council could take
other action on Thursday that would take immediate effect, but five votes are required for an ordinance to
take immediate effect.
Council President Olson began to make a motion to add back Items 3 and 4 that were deleted so they
could be discussed at the special meeting on Thursday, and then concluded a motion was not necessary.
4. ARPA FUNDING STATUS (Previously Item 8.3)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES
(Previously Item 8.4)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 22
Packet Pg. 126
7.A.e
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2
ZONE
Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to review the language in the packet.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the first step is to un-table this item so the council can discuss it.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
TO UN -TABLE THIS DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR
MULTIFAMILY ONLY BUILDING IN THE BD2 ZONE.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he included a recommendation in the agenda that the council not un-table
the motion as it will be a much easier process to move the ordinance in packet. Otherwise a number of
amendments would need to be made to the ordinance that the council tabled. If the council prefers to start
where they left off on Tuesday, that is certain the council's prerogative.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked for further clarification, advising she did not see the recommendation to
not un-table the item and she did not understand how the council could discuss it without un-tabling it. Mr.
Taraday relayed the recommendation to move the ordinance in the packet. Tuesday's motion was to move
the ordinance in that packet. They are not the same ordinances and the council's deliberation would be
much more straightforward if the council began by moving the ordinance in the packet.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that by not removing the item from the table, it would
be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining there is no obligation to ever remove something from
the table. His intent was to provide the most streamlined process; the ordinance in tonight's packet will be
the best starting point for council's deliberation and starting anywhere else will make deliberations more
complex. He recommended leaving Tuesday's ordinance on the table and starting deliberations with the
ordinance in tonight's packet.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2
ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS,
AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247
AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4253.
Councilmember Tibbott said staff did a good job of capturing the essence of Tuesday's conversation and
he agreed with the language used to describe the design standards. He will support ordinance.
Councilmember Paine said she will support this ordinance and hoped it would be sufficient for as long as
it was needed. She hoped the feasibility study regarding the needs of either commercial businesses or
residential in this part of town would be completed prior to the moratorium's expiration on June 2nd. She
will support the interim ordinance, expressing her preference to have moratorium lifted well before June
2nd
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 21, 2022
Page 6
Packet Pg. 127
7.A.e
Councilmember Chen asked for clarification on design standard D, some roof modulation is required with
preference for step-down that follows the slope when slope exists. He asked if that affected the building
height. Mr. Clugston answered this was offered as an amendment on Tuesday. It does not affect the
maximum height in the zone which is still 30 feet for the BD2 zone, but requires some roof modulation and
step-down is one of the option.
Councilmember Chen asked if the roof modulation referred to the same building or separate buildings. Mr.
Clugston answered it would refer to two separate buildings, As the slope steps down, there would be roof
modulation between the buildings and the intent is that each building would have some roof modulation.
That could be achieved via a step-down or other ways. Councilmember Chen summarized the intent is for
the view from the higher building to not be blocked by the building lower on the slope. Mr. Clugston said
he did not know if that was the intent of adding this standard. If there is a slope, the buildings would step
down the slope and there would be opportunity to modulate the roof. Councilmember Chen expressed
support for the ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Exhibit A, Chapter 22.43.080, was adopted as part of this ordinance.
Mr. Taraday answered yes.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
ADD TO THE END OF SECTION A, INTENT, "AND COMPLY TO HUMAN SCALE BY
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODULATION."
Councilmember Buckshnis said a builder with over 20 years' experience indicated using "compatible within
the downtown area" could result in a big block building and suggested adding human scale. The intent of
the amendment is to take vertical and horizontal issues into account. She recall Councilmember Tibbott
asking about that relative to the post office building.
Councilmember Paine asked if an addition to the intent helped describe what was required or was that
accomplished via the specifics regarding materials, private amenity space, street site amenities, roof
modulation, landscaping, etc. Human scale is subjective depending on context. Adding human scale is a
broader discussion that should be reviewed by the planning board and ADB to ensure they are comfortable
with adopting that because they would need to review against it. Development Services Director Susan
McLaughlin answered this section will be a subsection of the broader design standards. The intent and
purpose of those design standards already articulate human scale, keeping with the historic nature of
downtown, repeating historic patterns, vertical and horizontal modulation, etc. so it would be redundant.
Having an intention statement identifies the outcome once all the design standards are rolled up.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT MOTION WITH THE
AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND SO THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE READS, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-
ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS
THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. , AND LIFT-ING—THE
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND ITEM 2 RELATED TO BALCONIES, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE FIRST
SENTENCE, "DECKS ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE
SECOND FLOOR ONLY."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 21, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 128
7.A.e
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to understand that decks encroach on the vibrancy
of the City because it is part of the common space. Therefore, she wanted to ensure that decks that encroach
into the setback were limited to the second floor and up.
Councilmember Paine assumed all decks would on the second or third floor and she did not understand
what this amendment would change. Most likely decks would encroach, but not beyond 5 feet.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, pointing out on the post office building part of it is
commercial and she considered the patios to be decks. Mr. Clugston explained the intent of the standard
was balconies are on the second and third floors of buildings and can project out or be built into the building;
decks and patios are at the ground level which is why two different standard distances were proposed. On
the ground level, they can project into the 15 foot setback by 10 feet and balconies on the second and third
floors can project a maximum of 5 feet.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. ADJOURN
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 21, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 129
7.A.f
ORDINANCE NO. 4256
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-
ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE,
SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
INTERIM STANDARDS.
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4247, which
established a moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for BD2 zoned lots
that do not front on a designated street front; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 4247 took effect on immediately on February 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4247 was scheduled to terminate on
April 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended six days by virtue of Ordinance 4253; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was intended to allow planning staff sufficient time to draft
interim regulations for the BD2 zone; and
WHEREAS, the six -day extension was afforded to allow planning staff and the city
attorney sufficient time to research the history and legislative intent surrounding the BD zones
and the designated street front; and
WHEREAS, with work continuing on the designated street front, it is proposed that these
standards be adopted without lifting the moratorium and that the moratorium be lifted in
conjunction with resolution of designated street front issues; and
WHEREAS, planning staff have now completed a proposed set of interim design
standards for the BD2 zone; and
WHEREAS, planning staff continue to work on a permanent set of multi -family design
standards, which could be ready for adoption in the next six -months; and
WHEREAS, while the work referenced above continues, the city council desires to adopt
the following interim standards to bring the BD2 regulation into closer harmony with the city's
values and policy statements; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section I. Interim ❑esign Standards. A new section 22.43.080, entitled "Additional
Design Standards Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling Buildings in the BD2 zone," is hereby added
Packet Pg. 130
7.A.f
to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
Section 2. Duration of -Interim Design Standards. The interim design standards
adopted by this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the
city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of
its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 3 herein), this ordinance shall not
terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner.
Section 3. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on May 17, 2022 unless the
city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later
than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall
adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued
effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 5. Declaration of EmeMencv. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to
referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take
effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the
city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this
2
Packet Pg. 131
7.A.f
ordinance take immediate effect. Without taking immediate effect the interim regulations
adopted by this ordinance would not take effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium,
allowing for the possibility that building permit applications could become vested to the existing
regulations, which are not consistent with the city's values and vision for the BD2 zone.
Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare, and to ensure that any building permit applications submitted
would vest to the regulations set forth in this ordinance. This ordinance does not affect any
existing vested rights.
Section 6. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary
consisting of the title.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take
effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it
is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW
35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after
passage and publication.
APPROVED:
MAY MIKE NELS N
ATTEST/AUTHENTI TED:
&JYXW,SCOtL!�4AEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Packet Pg. 132
7.A.f
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 28, 2022
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 19, 2022
PUBLISHED: April 21, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. 4256
4
Packet Pg. 133
7.A.f
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4256
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 191h day of April, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.
4256. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-
ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE,
SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
INTERIM STANDARDS.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 191h day of April, 2022.
�y
CIT CL I %K, S c,6 SEY
Packet Pg. 134
7.A.f
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publieation
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDI1953211 ORMNIANCE 4255,
4256 as it was published in the regular and
entire issue of said paper and not as a
supplement form thereof for a period of I
issuc(s), such publication commencing on
04/25/2022 and ending on 04/25/2022 and that
said newspaper was regularly distributed to its
subscribers during all of said period.
The amount o the fee for su publication is
$37.84.
Subsefted and sworn
air..
day of
;,,,,,me on this
Nof!aty Public in and for the State of
Washington.
Ciq• of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416
SCOIT PASSEY
+ Linda Phillips
Notary Public
State of Washington
MyAppoin.-,ent Expires 8!2912025
Commis„ion Number b417
.may
Packet Pg. 135
7.A.f
Classified Proof
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
gf the Cily0IEdmoods, Washington
On the 2151 o[ Aprll, 2022, the City Council of fie City of
Edmonds, passed Iha following Oronarmes, The Summaries of said
ordinances consisting of titles are provided as fottoWS:
ORpINAN� - NO.4255
AN ORDINANCE OF H CITY DMbNDS, WASHINGTON.
EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
BUILDING PERMTT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONED LOTS
THAT 00 NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS
IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY
ORDINANCES 4253 AND 4254.
ORDINANCE NO.425E
AN ORDINANCE OF c�IDS, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-
ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE,
SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
INTERIM STANDARDS.
The full text of these Ordinances will be sent upon roquest.
DATED Ihis 21st Day of ApnL 2D22
CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY
Published: April 25, 2022. EDH953211
Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 04/25/2022 01:18:20 pm Page: 2
Packet Pg. 136
7.A.f
EXHIBIT A
22.43.080 Additional Design Standards Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling
Buildings in the BD2 zone.
A. Intent. To ensure that buildings entirely comprised of multiple dwelling residential units are
compatible with the downtown area.
B. Materials. Building facades must be clad with preferred building materials which include
natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber
cement products and the like may be permitted by the Director or Architectural Design Board if
they replicate the appearance of the preferred materials.
C. Private Amenity Space. An exterior area equivalent to at least 10% of the project's gross lot
area must be provided as private amenity space for residents of the development. This
standard can be met through a combination of balconies (cantilevered, recessed or semi -
recessed), decks, patios or yards for individual dwelling units or the site as a whole.
1. Not all dwelling units are required to have private amenity space. When it is provided,
it must be immediately accessible from the dwelling unit and be a minimum of 40 sq. ft.
2. If the space is at ground level facing a street, no fence may be over three feet in height.
3. Balconies may encroach into a required setback adjacent to R-zoned property up to a
maximum of 5 feet. Patios and decks may encroach into a required setback adjacent to
R-zoned property up to a maximum of 10 feet.
D. Some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope
when slope exists.
E. Street -side amenity space or Pedestrian Area. An exterior area equivalent to at least 5% of
the project's gross lot area must be provided as street -side amenity space or pedestrian area.
This space must be arranged along the street front between the building and the sidewalk and
must be open to the sky, unless otherwise excepted. The space must be pedestrian -oriented
and may include the following elements:
1. Landscaping
2. Seating area
3. A similar feature as approved by the Director or Architectural Design Board
4. Areas allocated to private amenity space cannot be used toward the street -side amenity
space or pedestrian area requirement.
Packet Pg. 137
7.A.g
Permanent Design Standards for
Multifamily -only Buildings
in the BD2 zone
Planning Board
Michael Clugston
July 27, 2022
7.A.g
Timeline to Permanent Standards
NOT a comprehensive look at BID zoning or multifamily desigr
standards generally — BD2 multifamily only since interim Ord.
4256 is valid through October 21, 2022
ino 99 Dl=ninrr Rn�rrl ir�
2) June 29, ADB — intro
3).july 11 Planning Boarr' intr--%
4) August 3, ADB — recommendation
5) August 10, Planning Board — hearing, recommendation
6) September 6, Council — re -introduction
7) September 20, Council — public hearing
8) October 4, Council — action/adoption
AM
7.A.g
Interim BD2 Design Standard Process
- Moratorium adopted on February 15, 2022 (Ord. 4247)
- Interim Design Standards adopted on April 21, 2022 (Ord.
4256)
- Moratorium lifted on June 1, 2022 (Ord. 4262)
- Interim standards valid through October 21, 2022
AM
7.A.g
BD2 parcels without
Designated Street
Front
- When the moratorium was adopted
the red parcels could have had
multifamily -only buildings since no
Designated Street Front
AM
t
M"
mi.4111RUNIS
I l-1 ■ n"�
c N�
BD2 parce
without
Is ■
Designated Stree
Front - Interim
- Council approved
interim map during the
design standard
discussion (Ord. 4262)
6NIMIN I'
AM
7.A.g
Interim Design Standards
- Materials
- Private Amenity Space
- Street -side Amenity Space
- Roof Modulation/Stepdown
AM
PO
i North Sound Center ► ^ + `
7 ro
r
.r e► i
i
"Wei 11 CC I
'c r
Materials
Breaks up massing;
rengthens identity
- Preferred exterior
materials: natural sto
wood, architectural rr
brick, and glass
- Man-made ok if mai
look like preferred
AM
7.A.g
r
moll.
ri[I'll V
NILL
PAI"";,�
s OFFEE STAP.
FA
7.A.g
Private Amenity Space
- Improves livability for smaller residential units
- Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to
with building character, orientation and style
- Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to t
facade, and increases `eyes on the street'
AM
PLAN VIEW - PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE
7.A.g
ROW LINE
6 FT. MIN. FENCE
SCREENING
PRIVATE
AMENITY SPACE
= 40 SO. Fr. MIN.
�Jrfvate Am
Space
0
a
N
N
ti
N
ti
m
d
O
r
C
O
Cu
r
C
d
NJ
O
L
a
L
cc
r_
CIO
N
d
C
LL
2
N
G
m
ti
s
X
W
.r
C
E
s
R
5 ft. min. 15 ft. min.
setback setback AMID21 Packet Pg. 147
7.A.g
SECTION CUT - ADJACENT PROPERTY
0
v
m
30 ft_ max
12 ft. min.
.,
�Jrfvate Am
Space
0
a
N
N
I-
C"!
ti
m
d
O
r
C
O
Cu
r
C
d
NJ
O
L
a
L
cc
r-
Cn
.N
d
C
LL
2
N
G
m
ti
s
X
W
i U, M
a�
Packet Pg. 148
7.A.g
Street -side Amenity Space
- Results in a setback from the sidewalk to serve as amenit,
- Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experiencE
- Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity
AM
7.A.g
Street -side
EMEN
NEEN"" Amenity Space
OEM
W016-0
SUP.-
MON
NEEN
NEEM D
NEEN - 5% of lot area must be prov
■
- Must be between building a
sidewalk only and open to sk
' STREET -SIDE �' �Must • e landscaping,
b AMENITY SPACEt
p seating, I _
a
v
AM
SECTION CUT - STREET -FACING
7.A.g
30 #t. max
12 °1 mw
AREA
eet-side Amenity
Space
et -side amenity space area
des any private amenity space
that is provided at the front of
gilding
opy/awnings required and does
ipact amount of street -side
pity area
Packet Pg. 151
7.A.g
Discussion
- Step downs
- Private Amenity Space — roof top decks
- Refinements to materials, private or street -side amenity
AM
7.A.g
Roof Modulation/Stepdowns
- "Some roof modulation is required with preference for step-dc
that follow the slope when slope exists."
- Variation in roof plane, reduce bulk
AM
7.A.g
Step backs with similar heights?
- BID example
(not BD/RM)
- 30725'
- 10' separation
7.A.g
Roof mods
- BID example
(not BD/RM)
- 30725'
- 10' separation
PLAN VIEW - PRIVATE AMENITY SPACE
7.A.g
ROW LINE
f J
6 FT. MIN. FENCE
SCREENING
5 ft min. 15 ft. min
setback setback
V-10% MAX OF
AMENITY SPACE
AS ROOFTOP
PRIVATE
AMENITY SPACE
= 40 SQ. FT. MIN.
Private
Amenity
>pace —
Rooftop
Deck
I% of required
area could
be
ieved with
a rooftop deck
owed above
height limit
gybe an option
after 10%
is
ieved?
Packet Pg. 156
7.A.g
. -s - w _-,
4 J4
a
ca
1 m
04
- --_ •
LU
wi
(D
mow
� h
Packet Pg. 157
7.A.h
Board Member Brooks thought that the last unit should not be the only unit to enjoy the landscaping at the end
of the building. They already have the benefit of extra windows and natural light that the other units do not have.
She liked Board Member Strauss's idea of making it more accessible to all the residents.
Board Member Strauss requested that the ADB or staff see the final plans regarding the massing.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROOKS,
THAT THE ADB ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF
REPORT AND FINDS THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDS 20.11, AND ZONING REGULATIONS
AND APPROVES THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY HOMES WITH THE TEN
CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
• ADD ADDITIONAL COLORS AND VARIETY OF MATERIALS TO ADD ADDITIONAL
INTEREST AROUND THE BUILDING, PARTICULARLY AT PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCES
ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
• CONNECT THE WALKWAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH THE NEW
SIDEWALK ALONG 210TH AND TO THE SETBACK PORTION OF THE NORTHERN
LANDSCAPE AREA.
• CONSIDER ADDING SOME KIND OF PEDESTRIAN INTEREST ENTRY FEATURE AT
THE WALKWAY AT 210TH TO DRAW A PEDESTRIAN'S EYE TO THE ENTRY IN THE
FORM OF AN ARBOR OR OTHER SIMILAR FEATURE.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The hearing was closed at 8:28 p.m.
BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
None
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone
Senior Planner Clugston referred to the set of Interim Design Standards that the Council adopted as part of their
work earlier this spring. It is required that permanent standards be adopted by October, and staff is seeking the
Board's input. He emphasized that this is only focused on multifamily design standards in the BD2 zone and
reviewed the proposed timeline for this work.
Designated Street Front Standards:
• Commercial and mixed -use buildings
• 45-foot depth of ground floor commercial
• Floor height minimums
• Transparency and access at sidewalk
• Detail at ground level
• Multifamily allowed behind 45-feet and above
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Virtual Meeting
June 29, 2022 Page 4 of 8
AMD2 Packet Pg. 158
7.A.h
Some parcels on the edges of the downtown area but in the BD2 zone do not have Designated Street Front
requirements. Since there is no ground floor commercial requirement for those parcels, it is possible that you
could have a multifamily -only building. During the Interim Design Standard process Council adopted
regulations further extending the Designated Street Front in certain areas.
The Interim Design Standards dealt with materials, private amenity space, street -side amenity space, and roof
modulation/stepdown.
Materials:
• Breaks up massing and strengthens identity
• Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass
• Man-made okay if made to look like preferred materials.
Private Amenity Space:
• Improves livability for smaller residential units
• Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation,
and style
• Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the facade, and increases 'eyes on the street'
The private amenity space has to be 10% of the project area. It can be divided up between balconies, decks,
patios, and yards. It can be provided with each individual dwelling unit (if at least 40 so or can be grouped for
resident use. Example photos of this were reviewed.
Street -side Amenity Space:
• Results in a setback to the street to serve as amenity space
• Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience
Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity
Street -side amenity space is 5% of the lot area. It must be between the building and the sidewalk only and open
to the sky. It must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. The street -side amenity space excludes private amenity
space area. Canopy/awnings are required and do not impact the amount of street -side amenity space. The intent
is to move the building back from the property line and activate that space.
Discussion topics:
Roof modulations/step downs — The existing language says: "Some roof modulation is required with preference
for step downs that follow the slope when slope exists." The intent is to provide variation in roof plane and to
reduce bulk. Step downs (or step backs) are useful where tall and short buildings are near each other. They are
less useful where adjacent zoning heights are very similar. Are step backs appropriate for buildings of similar
heights? Another option is to have roof modulation with similar heights.
Board Member Strauss recommended deleting, "follow the slope when slope exists." Board Member Schmitz
agreed. He thought that the modulation was important. He cautioned against being overly prescriptive in order
to allow creativity by developers.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting
June 29, 2022 Page 5 of 8
AMD2 Packet Pg. 159
7.A.h
Board Member Brooks said she likes the idea of the variation of rooflines because it provides more interest and
allows for more creativity by the developers. She spoke in support of the roof modulation language rather than
step backs but thinks that the language should be precise in so they can get the desired outcome. This approach
seems to be more appropriate for Edmonds.
Board Member Loch commented that the step back is unnecessary with the scale of buildings they are talking
out. He suggested that buildings should have visual interest in human scale. He recommended offering the
designer a menu of things they can pick from such as modulation, change in materials, varied roofline, awnings,
eves, etc.
Board Member Herr commented from a builder perspective that the more restrictions they have the more
expensive it gets to build. He thinks it will become that no one will build in Edmonds if it gets too restrictive.
Board Member Jeude pointed out they are talking only about this particular zone in the city. She thinks that the
roof modulation and step back are important to make the transition from downtown to residential.
Chair Bayer agreed with Board Member Jeude. She thinks step backs may be important depending on the
situation. She is concerned about lack of light and human scale development.
Board Member Strauss suggested language such as: "Some roof modulation is required with using variations
in slope, variations in overhang projections, setbacks, and step downs." She also recommended requiring a
variation from building to building.
Private Amenity Space — Rooftop Decks: "A maximum of 50% of the required private amenity space may be
provided as a roof top deck. Deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the height limit provided
the railing and guard system has the appearance of being transparent, such as a frameless glass railing system.
No permanent structures are allowed within the roof deck area." This was originally in staff s draft to Council.
They didn't like having the required private amenity space in the roof top deck area, but he thought they might
be open to allowing it after some other amount of private amenity space requirement is met.
Chair Bayer thought the Council was mainly concerned about privacy of neighbors and those on the street.
Board Member Herr thought that roof top decks provide outdoor space that people aren't getting otherwise. He
noted that most of what is being built in Seattle now has rooftop decks. Seattle allows you to use it as outdoor
space which provides for more density on the site. Normally the decks don't go all the way to the edge of the
building which alleviates some of the privacy concerns.
Board Member Schmitz commented that he has designed many buildings, and the rooftop deck is one of the
most coveted amenities because it is the largest area you can get in that type of building and allows for enjoying
the great views in this region. He commented that many buildings often have patios, but they aren't used as
much as rooftop decks because they are smaller and just not as usable. Since height limits aren't changing in
the downtown core, it is one of the best and most valuable resources they have. Regarding privacy, he
commented that anyone on the street can stand outside your house and look in anytime they want for as long as
they want. Finally, he noted that rooftop decks provide accessible space if there are allowances for an elevator
core that is a little over height (15 feet typically) to allow for accessible use. He noted that accessibility should
also be considered when looking at limiting the sizes of private balconies.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting
June 29, 2022 Page 6 of 8
AMD2 Packet Pg. 160
7.A.h
Board Member Loch agreed that rooftop decks enhance the livability and often the appearance of structures. He
could see not orienting them to face adjacent single-family residences.
Board Member Strauss agreed with Board Member Schmitz. She also agreed that it should be accessible. She
asked about the elevator core being allowed above the height limit. She also recommended having a minimum
size for balconies in order to have usable space. Mr. Clugston noted that the code right now says they must be
a minimum of 40 square feet. Board Member Strauss added that she doesn't think builders should be able to
take away ground open space and put it on the roof.
Board Member Brooks agreed that rooftop decks are a great addition to a living space. She is also in favor of
rooftop gardens. One of the great uses of a rooftop garden are that it is a natural coolant for the building.
Board Member Jeude agreed that a rooftop deck is a positive thing. From what she recalled of Council's
discussion on this, she thought they were concerned about privacy and about people hanging over the deck and
yelling at people in the street. She didn't think they were opposed to rooftop decks. They also were concerned
that if you could put all that private amenity space on top of the building then you could mass out the building
and not provide any other space around it. She likes the option that after a certain percentage of private amenity
space is met that a rooftop deck would be allowed.
Chair Bayer said she loves rooftop decks. Her concern is height limits and that other green space be provided.
She asked if rooftop decks would limit roof modulation. Mr. Clugston did not think it would.
Mr. Clugston summarized that the consensus appeared to be that in addition to the 10% of open space, some
type of rooftop area could be allowed.
Refinements to materials, private or street -side amenity
Mr. Clugston asked for any discussion on the list of materials suggested on page 349 of the packet. He noted
that the intent is to add interest and to allow flexibility in how builders could achieve these standards.
Board Member Strauss liked the list of materials and suggested adding a living wall to the list of options. She
also suggested banning LAP siding.
Board Member Loch suggested applying these standards to the offending building at 6r' and Main to see if it
would help or not. He commented that design standards can't prevent ugly.
Board Member Schmitz agreed with Board Member Loch that aesthetics can't be regulated. For example, LAP
siding can be very classic in the right situation. Asking for natural materials is kind of irresponsible because
they are so expensive and hard to get. A green material or recycled material made of fibers or recycled contents
could be a good alternative to the natural materials they are looking for. He noted that there are a lot of different
kinds of fiber cements that look very nice. Mr. Clugston noted that concrete laminates, veneers, fiber cement
products and the like may be permitted by the director or the Board if they replicate the appearance of the
intended materials. Board Member Schmitz did not think that the alternative materials should require approval.
He thought there should be more objective standards.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting
June 29, 2022 Page 7 of 8
AMD2 Packet Pg. 161
7.A.h
Board Member Strauss suggested saying that other materials could be approved by the director or the ADB if
they contribute to the appearance of the building. She expressed frustration that even with all their work on the
design guidelines they still end up with some ugly buildings. She stressed that they are only talking about this
certain zone. She felt they could give ideas of what they are looking for without prescribing the design or the
materials.
Board Member Loch referred to a case from Issaquah regarding clarity in design review. He stressed that the
applicant needs enough information in order to turn in an application that can be approved. He cautioned against
being too wishy washy or vague. Chair Bayer agreed and noted they had reviewed the Issaquah case several
times, and it is a good reminder.
Board Member Schmitz noted that today's ugly building is tomorrow's gem. He cautioned the Board not to
become the arbiter of beauty. He said he joined the board to help in that process and to help keep things sane.
Chair Bayer stated that her goal is to line standards and designs up with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Clugston indicated he would take the guidance provided tonight and work on some additional draft language
for August.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Mr. Clugston asked the Board to provide feedback at some point on the draft Architectural Design Board
Handbook he had sent out a couple months ago. Chair Bayer thanked him for handbook. She thinks it is very
helpful. Board Member Brooks stated she hadn't received a copy.
ADJOURNMENT:
The next meeting will be held on August 3.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of virtual Meeting
June 29, 2022 Page 8 of 8
AMD2 Packet Pg. 162
7.A.i
together a Stormwater Management Action Plan. In some ways the Salmon -Safe certification will supplement
other things; in other ways, it will not. He reviewed other work the City is also doing. Board Member Campbell
asked about the impact that focusing on this is having on staff time and other projects. Director Feser replied
that some of these items would not have been on the work plan. By committing to the certification, they have
to put off other things. Board Member Campbell asked what those things are. Director Feser indicated she would
need to follow up on that. This is part of why they want to go to Council to make sure Council understands the
price tag and the time commitment required. Ultimately, this will be the Council's decision. Mr. De Lilla
concurred. The preference would be to get additional staffing and funds so they can continue to deal with all the
other issues.
Board Member Gladstone commented that the tradeoff issue is an important one that the Council should
consider seriously given the demands on the budget. She thinks it would also be important for Council to
consider what those milestones will be.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
CHEUNG, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ADVANCE THIS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION,
UNDERSCORING THE IMPORTANCE OF LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL TRADEOFFS OF
IMPLEMENTING THIS VERSUS THE IMPACTS ON THE REST OF THE BUDGET AND
ENSURING THAT THERE ARE GOOD MILESTONES OR BENCHMARKS FOR MAKING SURE
THAT THERE IS VALUE IN THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Permanent Design Standards for Multifamily Buildings in the BD2 Zone
Senior Planner Clugston reviewed a PowerPoint presentation regarding Permanent Design Standards for
multifamily -only buildings in the BD2 zone. Council adopted interim design standards a couple months ago.
Staff is in the process of developing permanent design standards for these same buildings. He reviewed the
timeline for the adoption process and the moratorium process. These standards are intended to apply to the areas
in the BD2 zone that do not have the Designated Street Front requirements. Council also adopted an interim
map during the design standard discussion which changed the Street Front map. As a result, only a handful of
non -Designated Street Front parcels remain in the BD2 zone at the edges of the downtown area. The interim
design standards targeted these particular sites and addressed materials, private amenity space, street -side
amenity space, and roof modulation/stepdown regulations.
Materials:
• Breaks up massing; strengthens identity
• Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass
• Man-made is acceptable if made to look like preferred materials
Private Amenity Space:
• Intended to improve livability for smaller residential units
• Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation,
and style
• Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the fagade, and increases `eyes on the street'
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 7 of 9
AMD2 Packet Pg. 163
7.A.i
• Standards:
0 10% of project area
o can be made by balconies, decks, patios, yards
o can be grouped together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use
o if with individual units must be greater than 40 square feet
o balconies can project 5' into setback from R-zone property
o decks and patios can project up to 10' in the setback area
Street -side Amenit Space:
• Results in a setback from the sidewalk to serve as amenity space
• Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience
• Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity
• Standards:
o Must be 5% of lot area
o Must be between the building front and sidewalk only and open to sky
o Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc.
o Street -side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the
front of the building
o Canopy/awnings are required and do not impact the amount of street -side amenity area.
Roof Modulation/Stepdown: The language added to the interim standards stated that "some roof modulation is
required with preference for stepdowns that follow the slope when slope exists." The intent was to provide a
variation in roof plane and reduced the bulk of the building. The Architectural Design Board asked staff to pick
up more on the roof modulation aspect and provide a menu of options that a developer could use to meet the
additional roof modulation requirements. Staff will be working on this for next week.
Private Amenity Space — Rooftop Deck: There was some concern that if the required private amenity space was
allowed on the rooftop, it might all go there. The Architectural Design Board wanted the rooftop option to be
available after the 10% of private amenity space is achieved for individual units. They also would allow that to
be above the height limit with certain conditions.
Mr. Clugston stated that staff would be going back to the ADB next week to further refine the language for
permanent standards and then be back before the Planning Board in two weeks for a public hearing on those
standards.
Comments/Questions: None
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Lien reviewed the extended agenda and solicited feedback on the length of the agenda/meeting tonight.
Chair Crank stated she did not like late meetings. She thinks the length of agenda tonight was good, but the
members need to self -monitor the amount of questions and comments. She reminded board members that staff
welcomes questions between meetings also.
Board Member Gladstone thought there was too much on the agenda tonight. It's not necessarily the number of
items on the list, but how long each one takes. She appreciates Chair Crank's comments about being judicious
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
July 27, 2022 Page 8 of 9
AMD2 Packet Pg. 164
7.A.j
OFEb4
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Ins. iggo
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on permanent design
standards for multifamily -only buildings in the Downtown Business (BD2)
zone. The permanent standards are intended to replace interim standards
that were adopted by City Council in Ordinance 4256.
NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds
FILE NO.: AMD2022-0001
COMMENTS ON
PROPOSAL DUE: August 10, 2022
Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is
closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at
www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public
Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be
mailed, emailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the
application file number for all inquiries.
PUBLIC HEARING: A virtual public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on August 10, 2022
at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom meeting at:
https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/i/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGFFQ210Q2U5SDdwRUFadX15dz09
Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062
Password: 598700
Physical Location
The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for this meeting and
the public may as well at the zoom information above. However, given the
expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on open public meetings, a physical
location to participate in the meeting must be provided. For this meeting
the physical location provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community
Room B located at 220 Railroad Avenue.
CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner
michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov
425-771-0220
AMD2 Packet Pg. 165
7.A.j
File No.: AMD2022-0001
Applicant: City of Edmonds
DECLARATION OF POSTING
On the 27th day of July, 2022, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted
as prescribed by Ordinance. However, it was not posted at the Edmonds Public
Library because it is currently closed due to a water leak that occurred on June
24.
I, Mike Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 27th day of July,
2022, at Edmonds, Washington.
Signed:
AMD2 Packet Pg. 166
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH959384 AMD2022-0001 as
it was published in the regular and entire issue
of said paper and not as a supplement form
thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 07/27/2022 and
ending on 07/27/2022 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
The amount oAthe fee for suh public
Linda Phillips
Notary Public
State of 1N; shington
My Appointment Expires 8129l2025
Commission Number 4417
Subscribed and sworn ore me on this
day of
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
City of Edmonds Development services 186031703
MICRELLE MARTIN
AMD2 Packet Pg. 167
7.A.j
Classified Proof
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public
hearing on permanent design standards for multifamily -only
buildings in the Downtown Business (BD2) zone. The permanent
standards are intended to replace interim standards that were
adopted by City Council in Ordinance 4256.
NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds
FILE NO.: AMD2022-0001
COMMEN"fS ON PROPOSAL DUE: August 10. 2022
Any person may comment on this application until the public
hearing Is closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting
the City's website at www;edmondswa.gov (under the applicable
Meeting Agenda or Public Notices), or by contacting the City
contact noted below. Comments may be mailed, entailed, or made
at the public hearing. Please refer to the application file number for
all tnqulries.
PUBLIC HEARING: A virtual public hearing will be held by the
Planning Board on August 10, 2022 at 7 p.m. Join the Zoom
meeting at:
htlps://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/J/88526558062?pwd=YUtoNGF F0210O2U 55DdwR U
FadX15dz09
Or via phone by dialing 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 885 2655 8062
Passwords 598700
Physical Location
The Planning Board members will be meeting remotely for thls
meeting and the public may as well at the zoom infoimation above.
However, given the expiration of Gov. Inslee's proclamation on
open public meetings, a physical location to panlclpate in the
meeting must be provided. For this meeting the physical location
provide is Edmonds Waterfront Center Community Room B located
at 220 Railroad Avenue.
CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Senior Planner
inichael.clugstoii@edmondswa.gov
425-771-0220
Published: July 27, 2022. EDH959384
Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 07/27/2022 09:17:44 am Page: 2
AMD2 Packet Pg. 168
7.A.k
From:
Karen Haase Herrick
To:
Citizens Arch Desian Board
Subject:
Conments on Additional Design Standards for Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling Buildings in BD2 Zone
Date:
Wednesday, August 3, 2022 4:04:29 PM
Chair Bayer and members of the Architectural Design Board,
I have reviewed the design standards included in your packet for this evening's meeting. I am
unable to attend to make my comments in person so am sending these brief notes instead. I
am a resident of Edmonds, a retired military officer, and a registered nurse and health care
executive. I also served as a commissioner on Edmonds Citizen Housing Commission. On the
commission, I led and served on the Zoning Standards Work Group. One of our
recommendations was to develop multi -family design standards.
My comments on the revised standards as contained on pp 76 - 77 of the agenda packet
include:
• Para A. Intent -
o Please either delete the word "entirely" or "solely" as the two together are
redundant and therefore confusing.
o As written, the compatibility is open-ended. I believe a clarifying word with
"compatible" is needed, e.g.:... are compatible design -wise with the downtown
area".
• Para B. Materials. seems to allow for ill-defined discretion on the part of city staff
leading to the chance criticism of "playing favorites" when designs are okayed or not
okayed. I would clarify by specifying alternative materials groupings at the least.
• Para C. Private Amenity Space: If the ground level private amenity space facing a street
can have a fence only three feet high, this does not create a private area for a resident.
This, of course, underscores the reality that buildings in this zone should not have
residential units on the street level but rather only commercial space.
• Para D. Roof Modulation. To an architecturally untrained mind, the required options for
the roof modulation would seem to preclude the use of roof top decks. Since Para F
allows for roof top decks, the options for Roof Modulation would need to made
contingent on not having a roof top deck, would they not?
• Para E. Street -side Amenity Space or Pedestrian Area
o Why is this being required in a residential -only building?
o If this requirement is continued, then why include seating space right by the
windows of residents living on the street level? Such placement would be certain
to negatively impact the quiet of those residents' homes. It makes sense to make
it a landscape area only -strictly for noise control for residents.
• Para F. roof Top Deck. In conversation with an architect friend, I have been made aware
of the following with regard to roof top decks:
Packet Pg. 169
7.A.k
Roof decks are classified as an assembly space, having an occupant load of 7
square feet (SF) per person.
• This means a roof deck of up to 150 SF must have one stair well as a means of
egress.
• Roof decks up to 3,500 SF must have two separate stair wells. These stair wells
must be separated by a distance of 50% of the diagonal distance of the deck.
• All roofs must comply with ADA requirements. This means an elevator to the roof
deck is required. Elevators and stair wells up to 12 feet above a roof deck are not
counted into the building height.
• Guardrails are required for any roof deck closer than 5 feet from a roof edge. This
requires additional blocking to comply with guardrail requirements.
• Decks 5 feet or more back from a roof edge are classified as fencing. These are
much less costly since there are many options for designs of a fence.
o Roof framing for roof decks must be designed to carry a 100 pound per SF load.
As a reference standard roofs must be rated to carry a 35 pound per SF load.
If these are too specific, it seems to me that the para still needs to indicate that the deck
must meet all other structural, engineering, and architectural requirements or at the
least, sample drawings included with the standards would need to clearly by compliant
with the points above.
• These draft standards do not mention vertical and horizontal modulation.
• Anyone who has traveled to a communist country and seen the straight -sided,
cement residential buildings in those countries can attest to the need for
modulation that keeps a building at human scale, not flush with the sidewalk, and
bearing some variation for visual relief and pleasure. None of those buildings
considered ugly at the time they were built have morphed over the 70-odd years
of their existence into architectural gems! Walking on a street should not make
one feel they are in a cement prison with walls closing in on them as those
buildings in former and current communist countries make you feel.
• Even a three-story building needs some modulation for visual relief. As the ECHC
Zoning Standards Work Group of which I was a member suggested, stepping back
floors can be incentivized for developers to encourage modulation.
• Finally, I do not believe that buildings in BD2 zone should be all residential.
• Edmonds needs to expand, not decrease, its commercial space.
• Residential units at street level in this zone will necessarily be noisy, air -less, and
lacking in privacy. Why trade off commercial space to create third -world living
conditions for someone? We can meet growth needs without doing so.
• The street front level of buildings in this zone should be commercial space.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments.
Karen Haase Herrick
Packet Pg. 170
7.A.k
LTC, USA, RET
RN, MN
Packet Pg. 171
7.A.1
EXHIBIT A
22.43.080 Additional Design Standards for Stand -Alone Multiple
Dwelling Buildings in the BD2 zone.
A. Intent. To ensure that buildings entirely comprised of multiple dwelling ^s;�^t;^I^+ al units are
compatible with the downtown area.
B. Materials. Building facades must be clad with preferred building materials which include
natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Ce RGret^ laminates, veneer fib.,.
Gement predu^t,- ;;Rd th.. hki- Alternative materials may be permitted by the Director or
Architectural Design Board if they contribute to a cohesive design theme for the building 'c
..lir^te the appeaFaRGe .,F the pFefeFFe,d mat...i^4
C. Private Amenity Space. An exterior area equivalent to at least 10% of the project's gross lot
area must be provided as private amenity space for residents of the development. This
standard can be met through a combination of balconies (cantilevered, recessed or semi -
recessed), decks, patios or yards for individual dwelling units or the site as a whole.
1. Not all dwelling units are required to have private amenity space. When it is provided,
it must be immediately accessible from the dwelling unit and be a minimum of 40 sq. ft.
2. If the space is at ground level facing a street, no fence may be over three feet in height.
3. Balconies may encroach into a required setback adjacent to R-zoned property up to a
maximum of �6 feet. Patios and decks may encroach into a required setback adjacent commented [cM1]: Change recommended to pr
to R-zoned property up to a maximum of 10 feet. ADA compatibility
D. Sewe reefmedulation is required with preferenr=e fer step dewns that fellpvV the slepe
when slepe exists. Roof Treatment and Modulation. In order to provide the appearance of a
well -modulated roof, three types of roof modulation are required and can include differing
heights, protections, slopes, materials, step downs, step setbacks, or a similar expression.
E. Street -side amenity space or Pedestrian Area. An exterior area equivalent to at least 5% of
the project's gross lot area must be provided as street -side amenity space or pedestrian area.
This space must be arranged along the street front between the building and the sidewalk and
must be open to the sky, unless otherwise excepted. The space must be pedestrian -oriented
and may include the following elements:
1. Landscaping
2. Seating area
3. A similar feature as approved by the Director or Architectural Design Board
4. Areas allocated to private amenity space cannot be used toward the street -side amenity
space or pedestrian area requirement.
F. Roof top deck. A roof top deck may be provided as an additional design feature that extends
above the height limit for the zone. Deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above
the height limit provided the railing and guard system has the appearance of being transparent,
such a glass panel system. All railings must be set back at least 5 feet from the edge of the roof
AMD2 Packet Pg. 172
7.A.1
EXHIBIT A
line adjacent to an R-zoned property. No permanent structures are allowed within the roof
riark araa
AMD2 Packet Pg. 173
10.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/10/2022
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review Extended Agenda
Narrative
Extended Agenda attached.
Attachments:
08.04.2022 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 174
�y oV EQAf
a
PLAHM CoOOARD
Extended Agenda
August 4, 2022
Lugust 2022
August 24 1. Summer Break
10.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
�oeptemoer cucc
Sept 6 1. Planning Board City Council Update (on City Council extended
agenda?)
Sept 14 1. Tree Code Update
2. Wireless Continued Public Hearing
3. Reimagining Neighborhoods and Streets
Sept 28 1. BD2 Designated Street Front Public Hearing
2. Comprehensive Plan Update
3. Climate Action Plan Update
4. Equitable Engagement Framework
October 2022
October 12 1. CIP/CFP Introduction
2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Quarterly Report
3. Joint Tree Board Meeting —Tree Code Update
October 26 1. CIP/CFP Public Hearing
2. Comprehensive Plan Update
3. Civic Park Rules
November 2022
Nov 9 1. Civic Park Rules
2. Code Update Process
3. Tree Code Update
Nov 23 1. Day before Thanksgiving...
2.
r
Q
Packet Pg. 175
10.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
December 2022
Dec 14 1. Election of Officers
2. Tree Code Update
Pending 1.
Implementation / code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
For Future 2
Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
Consideration
2022 3.
Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design)
4.
Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
5.
Subdivision code updates
6.
Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
7.
Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
8.
Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
9.
Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
10.
Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
b. Parking standards
11.
ADA Transition Plan (Parks)
12.
CIP/CFP
Recurring 1. Election of Officers (V meeting in December)
Topics 2. Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department Reports & Updates- First
meeting after previous quarter (4/13, 7/13, 10/12, 1/11/23)
3. Joint meeting with City Council — April or as needed
4. Development Activity Report
r
Q
Packet Pg. 176